House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 46% of the vote.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95 March 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member's talk. I have a question for him.
Our country is far in debt. The deficit is running high and the government is asking for trust from the people. How can we trust a government that spends millions topping up their own pension plan while the rest of society suffers?
West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1994 February 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, all I want to praise the government for its sensitivity on the spreading economic impact on the labour dispute involving 3,500 west coast grain handlers.
The basic orientation of the Reform Party caucus to this proposed government legislation is that we support the imposition of the government settlement one last time due to the seriousness and widespread impact of this dispute.
At the same time we would like to make a suggestion that the government form as soon as practical a special joint committee among House standing committees on agriculture, labour and transportation in order to formulate legislation leading to the long-term resolution of this reoccurring national problem. The need for a long-term solution becomes apparent when one looks at the number of times labour disputes at the Canadian ports have been ended by government legislation.
For example, in 1972 there was the resumption of operations of ports on the St. Lawrence as well as the West Coast Ports Operations Act. There was the West Coast Grain Handling Operations Act of 1974, the West Coast Ports Operations Act again the following year, the St. Lawrence ports in 1975, the port of Halifax in 1976, the west coast again in 1982, Prince Rupert in 1988 and the British Columbia Grain Handling Operations Act of 1991. It is a long, sad history.
It is obvious that the seriousness of the underlying factors affecting labour and employment in the Canadian economy must be dealt with in a better fashion. One of those underlying factors is the steady improvement of productivity per person employed in handling grain or, to phrase it another way, the steady decrease in the number of people being hired to do the job.
According to figures supplied by Gordie Westrand, president of the Canadian area of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, in 1988 a total of 5.446 million man hours were required to move 54.591 million tonnes through the west coast ports of Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria, Chemainus, Port Alberni, Port Simpson and Stewart.
In 1992, 4.648 million man hours moved 53.128 million tonnes in those same ports. Primary figures show 4.2 million man hours for 1993. Therefore, tonnes per man hour have increased from 10.2 in 1988 to 11.43 in 1992 and there will be an increase again in this crop year.
Basically this means that fewer people are being employed to move more grain than ever. Mr. Westrand estimates his Canadian union membership dropping by 120 to 130 every year. Once again we are talking about Canadian jobs and their disappearance altogether. As I pointed out previously to this House, employers with their backs to the wall are often faced with cutting labour, one of the few options left, faced with increasing overhead such as the recent increase in premiums for unemployment insurance paid by both employees and employers.
At the same time the number of longshoremen is decreasing, productivity of wheat and demand for that wheat among Pacific Rim customers is growing. In part "Grain Matters", a letter from the Canadian Wheat Board, reads:
The Far East and Oceania, home to 3.2 billion consumers, could account for 40 per cent of world wheat trade by the end of the century.
Population and income growth, increased urbanization and the resulting dietary shift away from rice are expected to lead to greater use of the wheat based products. Canada could secure as much as 30 per cent of this market.
We are all familiar with some of the major losses from the current dispute, losses which Canada's economy can ill afford, loss of wages for the 3,500 longshoremen and transportation employees primarily in the railroads, loss of income from grain sales for the farmers, and loss of income for all maritime employers. Perhaps the most serious loss of all may be the long-term loss of our Canadian international reputation as a reliable supplier of goods.
We must ask ourselves what happens in boardrooms around the Pacific Rim when executives see that a shipment expected from Canada was delayed for two weeks due to a labour dispute. According to figures supplied today by experts from both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Human Resources the Japanese have already cancelled some of their barley orders for April.
The 26 ships currently in port, plus the 38 ships due to arrive this week and next if not filled with grain, cannot merely be shifted like some big steel cart. On the contrary, unfilled or seriously delayed orders profoundly damage the willingness of our customers to buy from us if they can possibly obtain adequate grain from Australia or the United States. Losing such orders would have obvious long-term ill effects on the entire economy of Canada, especially on western Canada.
It is apparent that major long term improvements are needed in labour relations in the Canadian ports, especially west coast ports which handle the majority of Canadian grain shipments for the hungry world.
In the Reform Party tradition of consulting and trusting the common sense of ordinary Canadians, we also propose that the parties in this dispute should be called as witnesses by a new special joint committee such as I mentioned before.
Expert testimony should also be sought from working groups already functioning under the chairmanship of Mr. Warren Edmondson, director general of the Mediation and Conciliation Service. Any long-term solution must include from all these sources their insights, their full co-operation and the education of all concerned to the numerous interconnected facets of our changing Canadian economy.
In conclusion, the Reform Party supports immediate passage of the government legislation together with the strong suggestion that we provide a new special joint committee of the House standing committees on agriculture, labour and transportation as an appropriate channel for obtaining a long term solution to this persistent national problem.
Social Security System January 31st, 1994
There is no reply to that. I thank the hon. member for his remarks.
Social Security System January 31st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was actually a question directed to me in that statement by the hon. member. If what the province of Quebec wants is total control of funding of its UI and the employment picture, I cannot see why other provinces cannot ask for the same.
Social Security System January 31st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of my first remarks to this House permit me to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker. As a newcomer here I rely on your expertise and your ability.
I also wish to thank the voters of beautiful Okanagan-Shuswap for putting their trust in me to try to represent their needs and hopes in this historic Chamber. I especially want to thank my wife, Cicely, for her unfailing support throughout the election campaign and I know my wife wants to thank the voters for getting me out of her hair.
Okanagan-Shuswap is a mixed rural-urban riding. Our sources of employment are many and varied. Historically our agriculture grew up around ranches producing beef for the Barkerville gold rush along the Hudson Bay fur brigade trails, north from the Columbia River up through the Okanagan Valley and across to Fort Kamloops.
Lord Aberdeen, the Governor General of Canada, and Lady Aberdeen visited their famous Coldstream ranch in Okanagan-Shuswap each fall for many years. Against the advice of their ranch manager who told them to share crop the vast acreage for profit, the Aberdeens decided to sell a portion of it as five-acre plots to Englishmen to come to Canada and grow fruit, thus launching our modern Okanagan fruit producing industry.
The influences and values shown by these pioneers remain strong in Okanagan-Shuswap today; love for our fertile land, being comfortable with hard work, and being willing to sacrifice for an ideal.
Some of these ideals can be seen by the kind of volunteer fund raising in our area in the past two years. For example, the Okanagan Valley, including Salmon Arm, recently raised over $600,000 for additions to valley wide campuses of Okanagan University. This shows our commitment to higher education.
The area served by the Vernon Jubilee Hospital raised $760,000 for a CAT scanner and the building to house it to help diagnose serious illnesses. This shows our commitment to excellent health care.
The area in and around our biggest city of Vernon, total service area population of about 56,000, went over their target
of $600,000 for a new women's transition home. The original building dated from 1977, one of the first women's transition houses in Canada. This shows our commitment to the family and our concern for the innocent victims of its breakdown.
Today's small community of Enderby, with the highest per capita number of senior citizens in Canada second only to Victoria, was famed in the late 1800s for growing wheat and milling and shipping flour around the Pacific rim, loaded at Fortune's Landing. Today Enderby and all of Okanagan-Shuswap is concerned that government pensions be maintained for households with incomes below the Canadian average.
I wish to praise the government for this motion indicating that it is prepared to ask Canadians what social programs it values the most and, hopefully, what areas of government spending it is willing to see cut in order to pay for those essential programs.
However, the Reform Party already asked Canadians those very questions at the start of the 1993 federal election campaign in our program called, Let the People Speak. Canadians told us most important was health care, pensions for households with incomes below the Canadian average, higher education and the environment. We therefore pledged that if we formed the next government we would maintain those programs at the same level in real dollars.
Canadians agreed that we should cut deeply in other areas of spending, including federally funded bilingualism and grants for multiculturalism and for special interest groups to pay for the most essential programs.
Canadians know that the only way to ensure the future of our treasured social programs is to be sure they are fully funded and on a sound financial footing we can sustain for the future.
Sustaining any program means we as a nation must create wealth. The way to create wealth is to have jobs. I know the voters back home in Okanagan-Shuswap are profoundly concerned about jobs, as are most Canadians. Because I have the honour of chairing the Reform caucus committee on labour and employment, I would like to comment on job implications of this motion.
The 1963 throne speech proclaimed, in loud and forceful terms, that any Canadian, young or old, who wanted a job must be able to find one. Back in the early 1960s the so-called full rate of unemployment was estimated by the Economic Council of Canada to be about 3 per cent, making some allowances for people changing jobs. Today we are not even dreaming about having a job for every Canadian who wants one let alone actually working and planning for that most desirable goal.
According to Statistics Canada there were 14,022,000 people employed in Canada last month. They are the people who carry the load of producing some 58 per cent of this country's total tax revenue on their shoulders. They will be the ones who pay for any presently unfunded programs.
Let me quote from the Year-End Review and 1994 Economic Outlook of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It states: "It takes the average company seven hours and fifty minutes in an eight-hour production shift just to cover operating costs. Taxes must be paid on top of that. Manufacturers are responding to these cash pressures by increasing operational efficiency and improving productivity. However, with their backs to the wall there is often little option open in the short term but to reduce costs by focusing on overhead and cutting jobs. Unless the cost burden that governments impose on businesses is significantly reduced prospects for future investment or employment do not appear very bright".
In a section of that report labelled Jobs on the Line, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association states: "The average Canadian manufacturer is having to restructure today in order to cover fixed costs, forcing companies to reduce their labour costs in an effort to keep overall unit costs of production under control. Manufacturers are responding in one or a number of ways: contracting out services once performed in-house; relying more heavily on part-time workers; extending the work day; attempting to freeze or reduce wages, salaries and benefits; or downsizing their work force. Labour costs are being cut because they are one of the few variable costs that firms are able to reduce. Of the more than 325,000 jobs lost in Canadian manufacturing since mid-1989, about 60 per cent can be attributed to cost pressures unrelated to production performances".
In short, increasing taxes decreases jobs. Therefore, I must conclude by urging the government to recognize that the only sure way to keep the social programs which Canadians treasure is to control spending enough to improve the employment picture in Okanagan-Shuswap and all of Canada.
Immigration And Refugee Board January 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. On January 26 the government advised this House and the Canadian people that when it made 33 appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board, members of my party applauded. This is not correct. My party did not support any such appointments.
In the recent election campaign all recognized parties in this House ran on platforms promising to eliminate excess patronage.
Could the minister explain how his decision in this case was any different from those made by the previous government?