John Duncan

[Lighthouses, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the department of fisheries is threatening to destaff Pachena light station, the lightkeeper who guided the minister to safety.

The minister is promoting this destaffing initiative by his bureaucracy simply by saying nothing. He is more concerned about salvaging his yachting pride than dealing with this issue. Eighty per cent of British Columbians want keepers on the lights.

The minister and a crew sailed a racing yacht from Hawaii to Victoria. Near land they ran into heavy rain and 45 knot winds. He radioed the lightkeepers who guided him to safe haven at Bamfield, 75 miles away from their destination.

The minister shrugs this off with a combination of yachting vanity and political expediency as a no risk non-event when in a storm he ended up in a completely different harbour from where he was headed.

People on the west coast know this is nonsense.

[Light Stations, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is known as revisionist history. This minister hiked into the light station in order to sign the book and thank the people very much for what it they accomplished when he was in deep trouble on rough seas.

The minister is always talking about putting conservation first. How about putting Canadian lives first? Is the minister going to take responsibility for the next Canadian in trouble when there is no light keeper home?

[Light Stations, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, why is the response of the federal government always to shut things down in British Columbia?

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is closing light stations and shutting down programs to help save salmon stocks. Yesterday the plywood arrived to close down the light station at Pachena, the very light station that saved the minister and his sailboat.

When 80% of British Columbians want light stations to be staffed, why does the minister continue to shut them down?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing quite like somebody putting words in your mouth. In terms of tax relief measures and the kinds of measures that are quite generic, those are very good things.

The member will not find a Reformer arguing that we should not increase basic exemptions for items such as the one mentioned by the member. In terms of strengthening communities, who can argue against motherhood? We want to strengthen communities. My point is that this government is doing things in an insensitive fashion.

The government is hurting coastal communities in particular. That was my point. The government's attempts to cut costs have tended to take away from the field and centralize. As a consequence rural and coastal communities, specifically in terms of the fisheries file, have been very much damaged. It is ongoing.

This week we are talking about light stations on the coast. The light stations on the west coast are more important to many rural communities than are the post offices in Ontario communities for example. They are much more important. If those light stations were in Ontario, with as many Liberal members of Parliament as there are in Ontario the government would not be doing what it is doing to the light keepers on the B.C. coast. That is just one tiny example, but the fisheries file has all kinds of them; what has happened to our field personnel, our enforcement personnel and our biologists.

Entrepreneurs cannot try to get anything done when it comes to developing a new fishery. There is nobody there to be their advocate when they talk to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is a big item. Thousands of jobs are going begging in B.C. right now in shellfish aquaculture alone because of a lack of people within DFO to be an advocate to either keep existing operations going or to allow new entrepreneurs to do their thing. It is very sad.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I must say I have enjoyed this budget debate. We had a certain amount of finger pointing. After all, the budget and the exercise that goes into it is the single most important activity carried out by government.

How did we ever get where we are now after 30 years of running unbalanced books basically? The last member was pointing fingers at Prime Minister Trudeau's administration. If we look back to that time and place, we see 14% annual increases in spending throughout that mandate which was what got us started. We then ended up with a Conservative administration that added to the burden once again.

One has to wonder when we have the single most important activity of government and we cannot get it right. Even though I have been in this place since 1993, it still astounds me that we ever arrived at where we are and are still paying the price. Whoever was the architect back then should be ashamed.

I have two things to talk about today. I want to talk about the budget in general and make some comments about the fisheries specifically.

I am still at a loss today to say anything positive about the budget that was brought down by the minister. For 30 years, as I have already explained, Liberals and Tories abrogated their primary responsibility which is to prioritize government activities in spending in order to optimize the benefits to Canadians. This obviously did not happen. This has led to the taxpayer being penalized. They paid the penalty of balancing the books which led to the ongoing penalty of Liberal debt costing Canadian families $6,000 annually to service.

This is not the only legacy. We still have Canadian jobs and economic opportunities that are being stifled which is continuing to hamper social program spending. Canadians have clearly stated what their priorities are: pay down the debt, reduce taxes, and spending that is focused on things like health and education.

I and many of my colleagues have asked the question of many of our constituents. Some of my constituents want to know why I am asking such a common sense question. The answer is so common sense that they wonder why I am asking the question. In a sense I agree with them, but common sense seemed to be out the window for 30 years in this place. Let us hope we never get back there again. Maybe we are still there.

What does this budget do? It has 100% new spending, 0% debt reduction and 0% tax relief. After 30 years the government balanced the books on the backs of the taxpayers over the last several years. In this budget it robbed those same taxpayers of well-deserved tax relief and debt reduction.

Let me just talk about the department I am most familiar with in this Parliament, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was one of the most heavily cut government departments in the last Parliament and it is ongoing. At the same time that costs are being cut in fisheries, we have a crisis of unprecedented proportions in the cod fishery on the east coast. We have salmon disappearing on both coasts. We have unresolved issues with Alaska on the west coast. We also have a huge lack of vital information on many species on all three coasts.

How can we maintain, as the minister has done, that our prime concern is conservation if we do not spend any money or devote any resources to it?

The standing committee on fisheries travelled to both the east coast and west coast. We have yet to go to the north coast. We have heard from fishermen everywhere we have gone about the lack of biologists and how appalling all that is. Yet, we seem to have a healthy, in terms of numbers, bureaucracy in DFO in Ottawa. However, when an entrepreneurial fisherman wants to start up a box crab or other new fishery, we do not have the DFO biology resources to assist in the feasibility study. Everyone recognizes and agrees that field enforcement has been shorted in a major way.

When fishermen complained about the DFO it was never about the frontline workers who provided so much support. The frontline workers were often the people who were familiar with the community as well as the fisheries. They were located where the action was. They tended not to be bureaucratized and were promoted from within the ranks. They were effective in galvanizing whole communities to assist in the stewardship of the fishery resource.

With the poorly thought out cutbacks, they are no longer there. It seems that the DFO has a leadership which cares more about perpetuating its own self-importance than it does about the people who really matter. The department does not seem to realize that without fishermen to manage, it has no mandate.

Many fishermen have complained that the DFO is only interested in supporting large companies and does not care about the independent small businessman. This government may say that it is more cost effective to have large companies fishing and that individuals do not have enough of a profit margin to make them viable. However, we do not think it is up to government to make that kind of judgment.

If a person wants to try to set up a business, and if the government has set up certain barriers in the way of studies that have to be done, it is up to the government to assist those individuals in meeting those requirements. It is not up to the government to put up more barriers and create a Chinese maze for approval seeking.

The DFO needs a new, strong mission statement which includes all people. It needs a new vision which includes empowering lower levels of the organization. Many of the lower level employees are paranoid about making decisions because the decisions they have made in the past have been countermanded so many times.

The DFO needs consistency and honesty at the uppermost levels for without this the lower levels are paralyzed. People need direct leadership in order to do their jobs in an enthusiastic and creative fashion.

We all understand that cuts had to be made in order to fix the fiscal mess of this and previous governments. What is now required are measures to ensure that spending is prioritized so we do not choke off the lifeblood of our nation.

We have heard that one of the new spending initiatives of the Liberal government includes $40 million to something called strengthening communities. I would think that hiring a few biologists and allowing them to do their jobs and allowing local fishermen to develop new fisheries would strengthen a community.

For every fisherman who is allowed to fish, other jobs are created, such as crew and plant workers to process the fish. The spin-off is wonderful and can be multiplied many times.

We do not need only a few large corporations doing the fishing to make work for other people and to keep communities alive. In fact, we keep hearing from fishermen that large companies can ruin local communities by centralizing operations and by being too remote from the realities of daily living.

I have heard from many groups and individuals who have attempted to develop entrepreneurial opportunities, often with 100% of the investment coming from private sources, who have been stymied and frustrated by their inability to find one advocate within the DFO, or DFO personnel question the economic viability and tell them how to rig their boats for new fisheries when it is the fishermen who should be determining viability.

DFO personnel should be worrying about fisheries management and biology, not boat owner viability, particularly in the pioneer fisheries, such as some of the offshore and outside 200 mile limit fisheries which are being created.

This government must reset its priorities. It must roll up its sleeves and do real work in determining where money should be spent and where it can be cut. When you toss around figures with too many zeros after them, you lose your sense of reality. This government has lost that sense. When we try to talk to a government that has its nose up in the atmosphere where only millions and billions make sense, we naturally become discouraged and disillusioned. How can we relate to the government? We cannot.

The government is too complacent by far. It needs to go out and talk to the grassroots, those people without whom we would all be out of a job. This government needs to pay back Canadian taxpayers by delivering debt and tax relief. The Liberal campaign promise was to dedicate half the budget surplus to debt and tax relief.

There is no surplus in 1998 because the government spent it. There is no debt reduction forecast because the government budget wipes out the surplus for each of the next three years. The Liberal election promise was quickly broken by a government with no shame.

I am splitting my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast so I will finish now.

If a government cannot keep its promises in regard to the most important mandate it has, then why should it be trusted to keep any of its promises?

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, usually we can blame our colleagues, but I think in this instance the gallery is filling with people in expectation of the budget. I appreciate the circumstances.

There is another very important aspect to what I did in the past in terms of the union environment I worked in. We had sort of a forerunner exercise which dealt with the environment in environmental committees and joint union and management committees. I became quite active in all of that because if everyone in the workplace is not on board we certainly cannot achieve or obtain the results we seek.

This became the basic building block in terms of bringing new practises into the forestry industry to introduce such things as proper treatments around stream sites, proper road construction, proper watershed management, and those kinds of things.

I recognize that there are very good workplaces and there are very bad workplaces. I like to think I worked in some very good workplaces.

We have to think about what the legislation is all about. Whose interest is at stake here? It is important to recognize that the public interest is at stake. We do not want to replicate what we have had up until now in many jurisdictions in Canada where the labour environment has led us to strikes or lockouts and to very insoluble power gains.

The community I live in is subject right now to a seven month strike or lockout, whatever we want to call it, at the Fletcher Challenge pulp mill. It looks intractable. It has a lot to do with the economics of business and some very important issues which divide union and management.

There has to be a better way. Although I recognize the bill deals with a specific federal jurisdiction issue, and not an area of provincial jurisdiction, certainly is not a breath of fresh air in this regard.

Will the bill create harmonious relationships? I do not believe there is anything in the new bill that will come anywhere near to accomplishing that objective. Does it ensure against any stoppages en route to the port facilities? No, it does not. There is nothing in the bill that deals with anything of the kind.

What we have is one more vague and ambiguous labour law that will lead to further investor uncertainty, which we do not need, and does nothing to create a harmonious relationship. I find this to be very contradictory or very ironic, given that we were in the House yesterday speaking about the multilateral agreement on investment which, if we listen to the members on the government side of the House, is intended to lead to investor confidence.

We cannot have contradictory philosophical underpinnings, but time after time we are seeing no philosophical or principled underpinning to any of the government actions. Whether it is a multilateral agreement on investment, labour legislation, fisheries legislation or aboriginal affairs, it is always the same thing. It is the Liberal fudge. That is what we are seeing.

When it comes to the Canada Labour Relations Board that is revamped and renamed under the bill, I hoped we would have seen something invigorating, something refreshing, something in tune with the times, something accountable, maybe even something elected or democratically arrived at.

What do we have here? We have one significant change. We agree that a 10 year appointment is too long. An appointment is probably inappropriate but the timeframe was certainly wrong. Ten years have been brought down to five. We certainly concur with that part of the legislation, but it is not going very far when we look at the length and breadth of the bill.

The labour relations board will have some basic powers. It is a quasi-judicial board. It is a board with a lot of power. The flexibility is so great that it leads to uncertainty about what it might or might not do.

The fact that board members are appointed by cabinet tells me that it can be skewed in any philosophical direction the cabinet wishes. There will be three members from management and three members from union. That is not much of a guideline when we think about how government can fulfil its agenda simply through the appointment process. We have seen it before and we know we will see it again from this government.

We know who appoints them. Do we know how much power they have? Yes, we do. The board can actually order an employer to release to a union representative a list of the names and addresses of employees who work off site. I like to think that my privacy and the privacy of Canadians is more valuable than to allow this non-accountable appointed board to overrule my privacy.

Another point concerns me. It has to do with the interpretation of representation. We know that is also left to labour.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-19 concerning amendments to the Canada Labour Code, specifically grain loading at ports.

In my previous life I worked in a union environment in British Columbia, the most unionized jurisdiction in Canada. I spent 20 years on the coast of British Columbia working in logging operations. In the area I represent of Vancouver Island North union workers are the backbone of the communities in my riding. I very much appreciate the balance in the workplace between management and union.

I worked in logging. Safety is a major concern in that industry. It is one of the most dangerous occupations one would ever want to encounter. There are some specific jobs that are very demanding and hazardous. The union certainly has a very large role to play in terms of safety. Nothing brings us closer together than a serious accident and nothing can lead more to finger pointing afterward if there is not a strong balance—

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we needed to see the details when the election campaign was going on. It is interesting that this question should come from the NDP.

During the election campaign, when I was asked about the MAI, I had an opinion. When the NDP candidate was asked about the MAI, he did not know anything about it. Twenty-four hours later, he was totally opposed. What kind of homework is that?

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that government members want to somehow portray themselves as the only defenders of Canadian culture.

If the hon. member wants to take that position he should narrowly define what he says and say exactly what he wants. What he has said so far does not cut it. A broad exemption really does not cut it.

I raised some legitimate concerns from a British Columbia perspective, from a provincial perspective. I do not hear anyone asking me about those legitimate concerns. Members will not find out about any of them if they sit in Ottawa and only accept input in Ottawa.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in the MAI of which heritage is one. To wrap oneself in the heritage flag and suggest that the Liberal answer is the only answer, which is actually a totally unworkable answer, I am not going to respond directly.

What I will say is in any set of negotiations there are some basic issues. If we do not get what we want we should not sign it. I agree with that.