Ed Komarnicki

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I direct a question specifically in relation to Saskatchewan. For a good number of years Saskatchewan has lost over $1.08 in aid to equalization payments for every $1 it got due to the sale of non-renewable resources. Will the formula ensure that Saskatchewan's non-renewable resources like oil and gas will not be taken into account in considering or determining the amount of equalization payments that may be made into the future?

I realize that Saskatchewan has the status of a have not province, but over the next number of years it may not. I know that in the past it has lost millions and millions of dollars with respect to the formula that then existed. I want to know if this formula has taken care of that problem.

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-263, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to replacement workers during a strike action.

Before addressing this bill in particular, I believe it is important that we take the bill in the context of what has happened in this Parliament in times past.

In the 37th Parliament, a similar bill, Bill C-328, was debated and subsequently defeated. The reasons for that bill not passing then are relevant to our present discussions on Bill C-263 today, and that has to do with the amendment to the Canada Labour Code, part 1, in 1999.

Previous to that, HRDC undertook an extensive review that resulted in an amendment to the Canada Labour Code relating in part to our discussion today on the issue of replacement workers. The amendment to the Labour Code was precipitated by a task force report, chaired by Andrew Sims, entitled “Seeking a Balance”. I think the title speaks to what was attempted to be accomplished.

In that report, after extensive consultation with major stakeholders representing employers' interests, employees' interests, society's interests and the country as a whole, the majority recommended a provision in the Labour Code that would give employers flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives.

That is the balance that has worked since 1999. We have not had any instance where there has been a problem. There has been only one case that was to be referred to the quasi-judicial body and it was resolved before it got there. If it has been working, we need to allow it to continue working and not try to fix it. The minority report recommended a prohibition of replacement workers in its entirety, which is similar to the provision this bill is proposing.

A complete prohibition of replacement workers would force the parties to bargain in a closed environment, one which would not account for the economic realities of the marketplace, especially as we face them today. There are economic considerations both for the employer's benefit and the employee's benefit that require not only the preservation of the property, but the preservation of the business and the economic realities that it faces.

We find that we are, in the federal case, much different from what they would be in a provincial case because this jurisdiction covers essential services across the country and it affects not only one province but it affects Canadians across the whole country.

The relevant portion of the current section of the labour code, section 94(2.1), which Bill C-263 is attempting to change, is a result of the majority report and provides that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.

This amendment to the Labour Code was an attempt to deal fairly with the issue of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction by accommodating the competing values and interests of employers, unions and employees. It attempts to strike a balance by prohibiting the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity.

It is not fair or accurate to say that it allows replacement workers in total. It allows them to the extent necessary and as long as it is not abused. So far employers have not been abusing that provision. It has been working. We know when there is a strike on. We know by the services, whether it is Bell Canada or the railways, that the service is being disrupted and the legitimate purposes of strike continues as the parties attempt to work things out. That must be preserved.

What is being proposed is significantly different from the solution that was reached by the stakeholders in the current Labour Code. The bill seeks to undo the substantial contribution of literally scores of stakeholders over a period of years and the subsequent full debate in the House of two bills, Bill C-66 and Bill C-19, which led to the amendments resulting in our current Labour Code.

I empathize with the intent of the bill, that any time the duties of anyone on strike are performed by someone else, the effectiveness of a strike is diluted and the bargaining position of the striking employees is weakened. Strike action is a valuable tool for employees who wish to bring resolution in the collective bargaining process, and the employees ought not to face punitive measures for taking action to which they are legally entitled. This attempts to balance that right and allows the provision for an unfair labour practice to be taken to a higher level.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the right of workers to organize democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. The Conservative Party is also committed to working with both unions and employers in areas of federal jurisdiction to continue developing dispute settlement mechanisms to minimize or avoid work disruptions to the benefit of both employers and employees.

In conclusion I would like to refer once more to the title of the Sims report, “Seeking a Balance”. After all was said and heard in previous Parliaments by countless witnesses on both sides of the issue, I believe they sought that balance and attained it. The balance exists and is now incorporated in the current part I of the Labour Code.

Many interests have been taken into account beyond just the interests of the employers and the employees. The report capsulized that our approach has been to seek balance between labour and management, between social and economic values, between variable instruments of labour policy, between rights and responsibilities, between individuals and democratic group rights and between the public interest and free collective bargaining.

We seek a stable structure within which free collective bargaining will work. We want legislation that is sound, enactable and lasting. We see the too frequent swinging of the political pendulum as being counterproductive to sound labour relations. We looked for reforms that would allow labour and management to adjust and thrive in the increasingly global workplace. That is the essence of it.

If Parliament wishes to re-examine this issue of replacement workers as part of a larger study, I believe considerable interest would be generated among the stakeholders to provide for a full and complete debate on this matter. That type of comprehensive debate and discussion cannot take place in the limited time we have in the House in the context of a private member's bill.

Without significant contributions from all of the affected stakeholders, I recommend that members of this House not support this bill in its present form. I agree with the previous comments, if it is fixed leave it that way.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief. I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

I felt it was important to add my voice to what has been said in this House respecting the grave travesty and tragedy that is taking place in Ukraine today.

I was very heartened to see in this House the non-partisan stand this afternoon in question period. Both sides rose to speak to the issue and to endorse free elections and democracy. The very essence and fundamentals of democracy is that each person has an opportunity to vote and to make that vote count, to ensure that the elections are free, that they are not interfered with and that the end result can be accepted by the people. The people must decide and not something that is done that is unusual.

We find and we hear all types of reports where there were not just simple or technical breaches, but there were substantive breaches. These were breaches that essentially changed the end numbers and what could be the result.

It is my view that what happens has to be transparent, open and accepted by all the people. We find not only the people of Ukraine rejecting what happened, but also the people of this House are. Nationally and internationally voices are added together. One voice will not easily be heard. A number of voices will be heard. When nations speak they will have an effect.

It is heartening for me to see that this House has taken such a positive stand and has been a positive voice in what is about to happen. When history is in the making, one never knows what the end result will be. However, we do know that what is unfolding is very significant and important and it will have a lot of impact in that region. Either democracy will prevail or it will fail. If the people there resist, if they work hard and if they are on the right track, they will succeed. It will be only a matter of time.

We want the people of Ukraine to know that they ought to be encouraged, and we are here speaking to encourage them. We are taking a firm stand. We are working hard with journalists, politicians and within the system to effect change.

I know there are tanks and soldiers there. However, I would suspect that they would use channels of persuasion, negotiation and public, international and government pressure to change the results of what happened, even if it means another election. I must ask the people there to continue to press on.

The young people of that nation have a future and that future is rooted in democracy. There is hope. That hope must not be lost and we want them to know that we stand with them in their battle for democracy and for what is right.

[Natural Resources, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the province of Saskatchewan has been losing equalization payments in excess of $1.08 for every dollar of oil sold under the current equalization formula. The Prime Minister has promised that Newfoundland and Labrador will keep 100% of its offshore oil revenue, and maybe it is and maybe it is not.

Will the Minister of Finance, on the record in the House, promise not only to pay back to Saskatchewan all the excess clawed back under the equalization formula, but also ensure that the province of Saskatchewan will keep 100% of its oil revenues?

[Riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight two cities within my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain, Estevan and Weyburn.

Estevan has a diverse economy including coal, oil, gas, a service industry, manufacturing, farming and ranching. Estevan has the distinction of being the sunshine capital of Canada. It is the hot spot many times. It also boasts being the first in Canada to meet and exceed its United Way fundraising goal for 24 of 25 years. Last weekend it beat the goal again by raising $213,000.

The other city is Weyburn, the opportunity city. It too was host to a successful United Way and the 2004 Summer Games. Weyburn is in the heartland of prairie agriculture and is Canada's largest inland grain assembly point. It boasts of the Weyburn Inland Terminal, Canada's largest and highest volume, farmer owned grain handling facility. It is the first of its kind, where farmers identified a need and proceeded to meet that need by constructing their own condominium and grain handling facility.

These communities are enterprising, energetic and innovative. I expect them to rise up to the current--

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I count it a privilege to rise in the House and speak to the matter of the bill we are debating today. Certainly Bill C-11 is a significant and important bill and we have to give due diligence to it. I appreciate that many of the comments that have been made are valid ones.

Let us look at the purpose of the bill. It is “to establish a procedure” for the reporting or disclosure of wrongdoing and to protect those who so report, and to set a code of conduct. The bill states that the code of conduct would be set by Treasury Board and a minister must consult with the employee organizations' certified bargaining agents. That is well and fine. The bill goes on to state, “Every chief executive may establish a code of conduct applicable” to their particular department. The bill does not give any guidelines as to what that code of conduct ought to be or should be. I find that there is a bit of a looseness there in terms of the definition and who may be involved in that process. I would like to see something that would define what the general guiding principles of the code should be in order that the parties may work toward that end.

When I look at the process, which is one of three important things, I find a fundamental flaw in the process, that is, it happens internally. Subclause 10(1), dealing with the disclosure of wrongdoing, states that “Each chief executive must establish internal procedures to manage disclosures of wrongdoings made by public servants...”. Either the process should be set out in legislation or it should happen altogether independently and outside of the employee-employer relationship. If the employer sets out the process, as we will see in the subclauses following subclause 10(1), it becomes an internal matter and probably will be the reason why many wrongdoings will not get reported. They will not be reported because of this internal process.

Subclause 10(2) states that each chief executive “must designate a senior officer to be responsible for receiving and dealing with” those disclosures. This is again an internal process, and in regard to a lower level officer, this is actually not defined. The definition of senior officer in the definition section of the bill simply states “a senior officer designated under subsection 10(2)”. Clause 10(2) does not define who that is. It simply states that it must be someone appointed by the chief executive officer. We do not even know who that would be. To continue, clause 12 indicates that a public servant may disclose a wrongdoing to a supervisor within the system.

So what do we have in the bill? We have a supervisor, we have a senior officer and we have a chief executive officer. If we look at that process, we will see that it is totally internal, totally within the structure, and it will be the primary reason why public servants may find it difficult to report a wrongdoing, particularly if it relates to that person's department or those levels of employees. It is my view that the bill should provide for an independent, external reporting mechanism and an external person who could receive the disclosures so that they could be dealt with without any fear of reprisal or without any intimidation.

In fairness to the minister, clause 13 indicates that there may be a disclosure of wrongdoing to the president of the Public Service Commission but it preconditions that disclosure and that is where the problem lies. It states, “if...the public servant believes on reasonable grounds that it would not be appropriate to disclose the matter to his or her supervisor...”.

Why should the public servant be placed in the position of a judge or the judiciary to decide if there are reasonable grounds or not? If there were an independent, external person or agency that determination would not have to be made. The very simple question would be, “Is there a wrongdoing?” If it looks bad enough, the public servant could report it to someone and let them decide whether there is a prima facie case to proceed. The onus should not be put on the employee, the public servant.

Clause 13 goes on to state that a public servant may disclose a wrongdoing to the president if there are “reasonable grounds” or where “by reason of the subject-matter or the person alleged to have committed” the wrongdoing, it would be inappropriate to report to that person.

Again, who decides the issue of the subject matter of the wrongdoing and whether the person would justify the reasonable grounds to report to the president? That is far too great an onus to place on an employee or a public servant. All the employee should be required to do is report the matter to an independent person or body which would make the decision on whether the process needs to proceed. That would provide the comfort level people would need in this particular issue.

I realize that there must be balance in this process. I notice that clause 40 of the bill deals with the other side of the coin by saying, “No person shall, in a disclosure of a wrongdoing...knowingly make a false or misleading statement, either orally or in writing”.

I think that is the other part of the balance that we need to be careful of. We need to ensure that those types of things do not happen. In order to ensure that, there must be a consequence for those who knowingly make a false or misleading statement. In the previous Bill C-25, there was a provision as to what would happen to those who would be in that category, and there would be some disciplinary action. This bill does not deal with that in clause 9 and I would suggest that it should.

Finally, as I look at clause 24 of the bill, I see that it states:

The President of the Public Service Commission may refuse to deal with the disclosure if he or she is of the opinion that

(a) the public servant has failed to exhaust other procedures otherwise reasonably available;

It does not say what those procedures are. It does not say that it refers to applying through the supervisor or through the senior officer or executive officer. It just does not say so and it leaves that discretion solely in the hands of the president of the public service. I do not think that is right.

If we were to have a independent body dealing with the matter, a body separate and apart from the employee-employer relationship, we would see that discretion being exercised. The clause goes on to state that the president may refuse to deal with the disclosure if “the subject-matter of the disclosure is not sufficiently important...frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith” or if “there is a valid reason for not dealing with the disclosure”.

What is that? What would that be? And do we want to leave it in the hands of someone who is tied to the employer?

Also, if a decision is made not to hear that process, there is no provision for appeal. There ought to be provision for an appeal. It seems to me that when employees or public servants are required to either go through the internal process or leave it in the hands of the president without having recourse to disagree with that opinion, there needs to be some objective person or body to deal with that.

I feel that when we deal with legislation such as this, when it is far-ranging, when it deals with wrongdoing of various kinds, we must ensure that for those who are legitimate, those who are not acting in bad faith, those who want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there is something wrong within a department, there must be an easy process. That process must be separate from the internal workings, which have their own machinations of power. If people can have that assurance, the process will flow smoothly. It will be someone making decisions that will be based on an objective basis and not on bias, not on feelings and not on relationships. I think that is very important.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, farmers are doing well. I am saying the government can step up what it does in general advertising, general programming. That is something the government could do without a lot of dollars and it is something the government is not doing. We can eat Canadian beef. Farmers know that. The government needs to promote that and promote it harder and faster.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is true that the government has a desire to see things happen, a desire to see farmers survive but it will take more than desire. It will take some action. I would like to encourage the minister and his department to have a marketing plan that is not just international, which is important, but an aggressive marketing plan within our country, within our citizenry to say that we need to stand with our farmers.

We need to market our product within Canada. We need to be aggressive in our marketing and ensure that consumption takes place within our country and that we have the production capability to meet that need.

We need to diversify. We need to enlarge our markets but we must take the steps to do this and we must do it now. Our farmers are the most efficient, productive farmers anywhere in the world. They need some assistance from our government, some direct action and something that they can see is a tangible step to actually seeing that something is being done.

In terms of marketing, I have not seen any marketing in our country that would enhance beef sales and purchases to have our consumer stand with our farmer to any major degree. There has been small pointed advertising but nothing significant on a national basis. That is necessary.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I agree that the phenomenon we are facing is unusual and perhaps unprecedented, but it requires action on the part of the government. For 18 months we have not seen the border open. For the best part of the first year, it was hope against hope that it would be open without taking any positive steps to make sure it happened.

Despite all the programs that have been mentioned and all the dollars that have gone in, why are farmers frustrated? Why are they in a desperate situation? Why are they are not getting responses when they ask where the money is, where their entitlement is? Why is it so complicated for the farmers? Many are unable to hire lawyers or accountants to get the forms completed. They must do it themselves. They find they have made errors and they do not get the assistance. When they phone, there are delays. When there are timelines, they are not met.

While the minister is postulating about what needs to happen, farmers and communities are going down. It is real. There is frustration for farmers, real people, in elevators and offices, grown men with tears in their eyes, who are saying that they do not think they can make it through the fall, and we are talking about what we should do.

The big issue is, do we want to preserve our farm industry or do we not? Do we want to save our cattle industry or do we not? If we do, we must take immediate and bold steps and invest some funds. I am not talking $600 million or the $1.6 million. Most of the programs are designed to meet the dollars that the government has set aside as opposed to asking farmers what they need and designing a program to meet those needs. That is lacking. It is not that difficult and it is not that complicated. The programs should be simple and easy for the farmers to understand.

Many of the issues facing the farmers are beyond their control. There is BSE today. Tomorrow it is something else, low commodity prices or world market conditions. We are expecting our farmers to preserve and save our food supply, to preserve an industry by using their equity, by borrowing more money, by mortgaging their farms, carrying the load that our country and their government should be carrying on their behalf.

When something happens that is beyond the control of farmers, our governments must step in immediately and help them out. There needs to be a program designed that is not ad hoc and that is not a knee-jerk reaction, as we have seen.

For instance, the first program put moneys into the pockets of the farmers only to have the cattle dumped on the market. The cattle crisis goes on and the funds are passed over to the packing and slaughter houses. Somehow the government tries to blame the opposition and says that we should have known better. The moneys are going some place else. The government designed the program and ought to know how it works. The minister should take those things into account before the program goes on.

Now we have a stand aside program. It has some value but it will go into feed which will be lost again, and we have no assurances that the market will survive.

We have to look at the big picture. We have to be sure that our farmers and ranchers are backstopped from those kinds of circumstances that are far beyond their control. We need to have a simple process. We do not want to have farmers investing money to join a program, like the CAIS program.

I heard the minister say that it was an income stabilization program. In fact it has requirements of five year averages. Five poor years are still five poor years. The rules are arbitrary. Announcements are made before programs are ready to receive applications. To me, it seems disjointed. It seems to be not well thought out. I realize it is not an easy situation and that it is complicated, but I would ask the government to decide the big issue. Are we going to preserve our farming industry? Are we going to preserve our cattle industry? If we are going to, then we have to meet the need that will meet that result rather than the government saying that it will give a little and try to design a program to meet that bit while it hopes farmers will survive, that they can use their equity and come out the other side.

The industry is being told that it may take a year or two but that it is on its own except for what it gets from the government, which is not very much. It is time to be more specific and bold. It is time to design a program that will preserve our food industry.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is also my first time speaking in the House. I would like to thank my constituents, the people from Souris--Moose Mountain, for their trust and confidence in me, and I thank the many volunteers for their hard work. I would like to thank my wife and family for being part of the process that brought me here. Parliament is quite an institution, and I am certainly proud to be here.

I knew some of the members. I knew the hon. member for Wascana. He and I went through law school in 1971-73. I was curious as to what he might be doing in the House. Not very much, I find after being here for a week, and that incrementally.

It is an honour to be here. I can say I am heartened that one of the issues of the throne speech will deal with equalization payments, because my province of Saskatchewan has been very much affected by the formula that was changed in the 1980s and 1990s. For every dollar of oil we produce in Saskatchewan, we lose $1.08 or more in equalization payments. It is time for that to change.

I am heartened to see that the government also will be dealing with work skills and apprenticeship programs and literacy programs, but more important than that is the creation of jobs. We need to have the jobs that will require the skills, which will take some tax reduction, not only for large business but for small business, and also for individuals, to ensure that we have the climate for the creation of the jobs we need in this country.

The government boasts about its labour management abilities; it talks about working in collaboration with labour. Yet this week we saw evidence of the fact that the government was not prepared to negotiate with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and it put everything on hold because it was politically expedient to do so. It was not until there was pressure put upon the government by third parties and by our party and myself as critic that it decided to go back to the table as it should have. The government says one thing, but it does another. If this government respects employees it should not be garnering large surpluses in the EI account and using them for purposes for which they are not intended. Those accounts and that surplus must go for employees.

I am also encouraged that the government has made shelter and housing a high priority and is addressing homelessness. Home and shelter are very important to every individual. The manner in which these goals are attained is very important. We must have adequate housing with the least investment. We must have affordable rental accommodations. We must encourage the market by the building of further rental accommodation and utility shelters.

We must address the plight of our aboriginal people in this area and, in particular, provide education and skills training. Yesterday I met with the White Bear aboriginal leaders. I am encouraged with what I have seen in the initiative they intend to take. They simply need to be freed up to do it, as my colleague just before me suggested in his speech.

The main issue I wish to address relates to the constituency of Souris--Moose Mountain, which is largely comprised of grain farmers and cattle farmers. I have been in the business for some 30 years in that constituency and I have not seen as great a challenge as these farmers are facing at this time. The circumstances are dire. They are actually at the crossroads of existence. They may or may not exist in the condition that we know them. The situation is so dire and the time is so short that if there is no action taken now it may change forever.

In spite of all of that, in spite of the fact that they are the backbone of our communities and if they are shut down our communities are shut down, we find that the Prime Minister has not had the courtesy to address that issue in the budget speech except incidentally by saying that agriculture is a significant industry.

It is one thing to make a promise. It is another thing to break a promise. It is one thing to talk about something, but this government has not even talked about agriculture when it is facing the greatest crisis it has ever faced in the history of our country.

As someone who comes from western Canada, I find it appalling that there was barely a reference to the farmers of Saskatchewan and no plan as to what will happen: no plan, no vision, not even an inkling of what the government is going to do.

Not only will people perish without a vision, as my learned colleague said, but our farmers will perish if there is no vision, and this government is devoid of vision. We need bold vision. We need bold steps that must be taken now. Our party will see to it that we will continue to press the government until it sees the picture and does something about it.

The Prime Minister has made a few flybys in Saskatchewan. In fact, he dropped into the Regina-Wascana area, but he could not possibly have attended at the various farms in Saskatchewan for he would have seen the frustration, and in fact the desperation, of some farmers. If he had seen that, there would be some programs directed specifically to meet that situation.

I am not talking about $800 million or $1.6 million. I am talking about an investment of billions. Our finance minister has said, previous to the various announcements of the billions of dollars, that there was no money to be found and there was no wiggle room, yet the government came up with billions of dollars. We are having a national catastrophe on the prairies and there is not even a mention of a plan that would take care of the situation.

It is easy to understand that western alienation continues to grow. From my Estevan constituency, from my Weyburn constituency, in my Ottawa office and personally, I have received calls time and time again in the last number of weeks in respect to the situation farmers find themselves in, and particularly with the CAIS program. Some of them have expected dollars and have been told they are receiving very little. Some have said they will be receiving nothing. These farmers have bills to pay. They have fuel bills and fertilizer bills and there is no money.

The programs for farmers require the help of accountants and lawyers. It is time we made the programs simple enough such that farmers can figure them out at their kitchen tables and understand what they will be receiving at the end of the day.

Saskatchewan farmers have suffered poor yields, frost and grasshoppers. They have suffered not only in that area but also in the political realm, with the BSE border closing and with low commodity prices, and the government has done nothing. People on the farm maintain two jobs and they do not maintain two jobs because they want to work more than 12 hours a day. They do it because they have to.

I recently received a letter from the Rural Municipality of Benson No. 35. It portrays what all of the RMs in my constituency are concerned with. At a meeting they held, they discussed the crisis facing agriculture “due to the failure of the federal and [provincial] government[s] to properly address the BSE outbreak and the low income of grain farmers”. They said the agricultural crisis facing producers today “requires immediate action on behalf of [both] government[s] if agriculture is to remain a viable way of life in the province and this country”.

In the middle of all of that, there was nothing in the throne speech.

The crisis facing agriculture producers is not limited to livestock producers but extends to grain farmers as well. With the elimination of grain transportation subsidies by the federal government, there was a direct impact on grain farmers due to the dramatic rise in costs for transporting their commodities to the market. Furthermore, they have continued to be hit with low commodity prices as well as frost.

I have here the grain ticket of a farmer, in the amount of $719. After deducting cleaning charges, elevation and handling charges, Canadian Wheat Board freight charge, trucking premium and weighing and inspection, the net cheque is $270. The rest is taken up by one cost or another, and the government is not concerned that the farmers are not earning enough to pay their costs of operation.

The administrator of the RM says in closing that council urges both the federal government and the provincial government to “step up to the plate and assist agriculture producers before it's too late”.

I think they have capsulized what is important. The window of time is short. It is time for the government to act now. It has failed in the throne speech to indicate what it is going to do. It is important that it do so.