Lynne Yelich

[Agriculture, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister met with U.S. homeland security chief Tom Ridge. The Liberals have said that they will use all meetings with U.S. counterparts to discuss getting the border reopened for Canadian beef. I quote the finance minister, “We don' t want any bilateral conversation to go by without BSE”.

Did the Deputy Prime Minister discuss the border closure with Secretary Ridge yesterday?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to contribute to the bill on the public servants disclosure protection act. It is ironic that I rise today to speak to the bill. I just happened to pick up an article that was faxed to me from my riding in Saskatchewan, an article from the Saskatchewan News Network by reporter, Barb Pacholik, who reports on how Saskatchewan's whistleblower law is about to be tested, as it is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Linda Merk was a manager/bookkeeper for the Ironworkers Union, Local 771 in Regina. In November 2001 she was fired after raising concerns about salary and expense payments by two union officials. Linda Merk took the employer to court under the province's labour standards act. In a split decision last year the provincial appeals court reversed what had been the first successful conviction in Canada under a whistleblower law. It is the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to interpret a whistleblowing law.

We also have an environment that seems to punish people who speak out, and its not exclusive just to the federal level. In Saskatoon a hospital the head of emergency medicine was removed from his position after he wrote a letter to the province stating patient care was compromised because of lack of resources.

I am here today because I have met someone who has been a victim of whistleblowing, Joanne Gualtieri. She promotes the free expression rights for employees, including the right to reveal misconduct, corruption and unethical behaviour. She says that these laws are scattered in the whistleblowing laws across Canada in environmental labour legislation and believes Ottawa needs to set the standard. She notes that the new Criminal Code law enacted earlier this month imposes penalties on those who punish or retaliate against whistleblowing employees, but does little to help the whistleblower who may have lost a job, a reputation, or paid a huge emotional and financial toll and has to foot the bill yet for their case. These cases are the reason why I am interested in this legislation.

Ms. Gualtieri came to committee and talked about what legislation meant to her and some of the meaningful legislation that she felt had to come forward. She feels there has to be a whistleblowers human rights act and a whislteblower bill of rights. She has a 23-point checklist outlining the essential components of effective whistleblower protection.

Reprisals and retaliation against whistleblowers are well documented, including: marginalization, demotions, blacklisting, threats, humiliation, specious prosecutions, firings and the withdrawal of meaningful work. Statistics in the United States report that 85% of the whistleblowers experience some form of retaliation. The consequences can have a prolonged, in fact lifelong impact on whistleblower with tragic implications for the people of Canada.

Consider the lives that would have been saved and painful suffering avoided if someone had blown the whistle on Canada's tainted blood. Innocent deaths would have been spared in Walkerton. If public servants had been able to engage in free speech, the fiscally ballooning gun registry would have been exposed, as well as the sponsorship spending. Money saved would have been available for health care, child care, aboriginal communities and homes for the homeless. Valuable time politicians and parliamentary resources now spent on a torturous ex post facto inquiry would be available for engagement on important public matters. However, for many Canadians, the final insult was the image of Canada's former privacy commissioner, ever belligerent and bullying toward any of his staff who questioned his expenditures.

There is just a sampling of troubling betrayals of public trust in the absence of legitimate whistleblower protection. It is hard to know the true extent of both political and bureaucratic wrongdoing and ineptitude.

When Ms. Gualtieri came to the committee, she had real concerns. She had emphasized the lack of independence and the prevailing requirement to disclose to one's bosses. She talked about full free speech rights. She wanted all disclosure of illegality and misconduct to be permitted. She felt that the bill did not include the definition of wrongdoing and the violation of Treasury Board policies, rules and guidelines, even though it is a vast compendium of the Treasury Board manuals that govern the day to day operations of government agencies and departments.

She spoke about having realistic burdens of proof. It is most difficult at times and almost impossible for a whistleblower to prove that a government department has retaliated. Bosses do not generally confess to retaliation. To counterbalance this evidentiary problem, the law must provide for a reverse onus burden of proof.

She talked about taking corrective action. Studies have shown that employees remain silent for two key reasons: one, they have no faith that anything will change following their disclosure; and, two, there is the fear of reprisals. Clearly the public interest requires that corrective action be taken and legislation therefore requires the establishment of a strong, independent agency with full investigative powers and the authority to order a minister to take corrective actions.

To be effective, a minister would be held liable for statutory breach if he or she failed to take this corrective action ordered. Furthermore, whistleblowers must have a say during their process and not be disenfranchised.

I realize my time is up and I would like to extend my thanks for allowing me to speak this afternoon. I look forward to speaking to the bill again when it comes back from committee.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member brought to light the comment of an agreement in principle with the government of Quebec. I can tell the member that he is going to hear a lot of this sort of talk from the government across the way, which says different things in every part of the country.

We in western Canada have heard about western alienation. During the campaign one would not believe how many times western alienation was addressed. We saw it at football games which the Prime Minister attended. He came to Saskatoon and lauded our city, and convinced us all that he was addressing western alienation. As the member said, in Quebec he will address its issues.

He is everywhere, all over the map, in every region. I cannot imagine all the things he has promised Atlantic Canada or the western part of our country, but the member will find that there is not a real good map of where our Prime Minister is going or where the government is going. I wish the member luck in trying to read this map.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the constituents of Blackstrap for returning me to Parliament and supporting me as their representative in Ottawa.

It is interesting that since 2000, when I was first elected to this chamber to represent the fine people in my riding, we have had four throne speeches by the Liberal government. Something that I thought was a rarity has become an annual happening, each repeating the same rhetoric but not building on the one before. Each throne speech is more diluted than the previous one.

According to the proper procedure of the House of Commons, the Speech from the Throne is generally a statement of the government's policies and broadly there is debate on that policy. It is very difficult for this side of the House to debate policies that do not exist. The latest throne speech was long on generalities and short on planning.

I found it particularly ironic that the Governor General opened the 38th Parliament by acknowledging a 60th anniversary of the D-Day landing and how important that day was to Canadians and to the world. From the veterans, she said, as a country and as individuals, we gain in pride and in purpose from their deeds and their service.

We closed Parliament talking about D-Day. Just days before the Prime Minister dissolved the 37th Parliament, we asked the Prime Minister why, when the government had money to take over 70 government sports staff, that only 60 veterans were sent to the D-Day celebrations in Normandy. Where was the respect when the government had a chance to honour our veterans by allowing more of them to attend that historic memorial?

Not surprisingly there has been an increasing number of cases brought into my constituency office concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs. In my riding there are constituents deeply affected by the lack of support given to veterans' widows and those affected by chemical and biological warfare.

It is commendable that we honour these Canadians through speeches, but history shows that there has been no tangible action taken to follow through on those words.

The speech also noted that this 38th Parliament begins with a commitment that all parliamentarians, regardless of political affiliation, will contribute to real progress for Canadians, for the country and our future. It is unclear how the progress will occur when the government's plan consists of little more than the same generalized promises that have not resulted in changes since they were first announced.

Canadians are faced with a throne speech from a federal government that does not appear to have fully accepted that it is in a minority position.

The government's message about children, caregivers and seniors is a series of vague statements. There are statements like, “we will explore other means”, “ask Parliament to consult”, “put the foundations in place”, “drawing on upcoming recommendations”. These are not phrases that suggest concrete action or progress.

The government has been in power for more than a decade and is still fumbling for solutions. The cornerstone of the government's plan for children is a national system of early learning and child care. Child care is very different in each corner of the country where local and provincial governments have already realized this.

By the time regional, cultural and economic adjustments are made for each part of the country, we end up with anything but a national program. That is important in my riding where there is a large rural population. Regardless of the good intention of universality, such programs inevitably are less accessible.

The government's plan also overlooks the importance of respecting provincial autonomy. Child care is a provincial responsibility and there are serious logistical, jurisdictional and economic issues that must be better explained by the federal government. Universal daycare is something that will require the cooperation of the provinces and the federal government and the decision cannot be made unilaterally by the federal government.

Equalization is mentioned briefly in the Speech from the Throne. There is a tremendous opportunity to enhance federal-provincial relations through a fair equalization formula, a formula that respects provincial jurisdictions as laid out in our Constitution.

This speech also makes brief reference to Canadian families who care for young children as well as the elderly. Many of our baby boomers are caught in the situation where they have school age children and aging parents. They are now being called the sandwich generation.

The Governor General stated that the government recognizes the vital role of Canadians who care for aged or infirm relatives, or those with severe disabilities, and that it will assist people with disabilities in becoming more self-reliant by looking at possible tax measures.

Looking back earlier this year, we cannot forget that it was the same government that informed some 106,000 Canadians with disabilities that they were no longer automatically eligible and would have to reapply for a disability tax credit that they had been receiving for years. I fielded many calls from people afflicted with blindness or amputated limbs who wondered how they could suddenly not be considered disabled for the purposes of taxation.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has picked up on the lack of measures aimed at helping the disabled, stating in a press release that the Speech from the Throne is disappointing for persons with disabilities as it offers to our broad and diverse communities even less than was previously acknowledged in the February 2004 Speech from the Throne and the March 2004 budget.

The throne speech is also notable for what it does not address, including important issues such as the action on the gun registry, democratic reform, tax relief, a modernized and effective military, and criminal justice reform. Also glaringly absent was any significant discussion of agriculture.

What the government has described as one of the key pillars of our economy, the agriculture industry, is on a downward spiral economically. In recent years all farmers, western and eastern, have been plagued by a number of obstacles such as drought, grasshoppers, frost, subsidy wars, trade disputes and of course the ongoing BSE border closure debacle. Farmers are losing their livelihood and the only mention the government saw fit to include was a reference buried in other topics, such as automotive, aerospace and other manufacturing and resource based industries. Yes, that is what agriculture got in the throne speech, a mere mention.

I said earlier that the throne speeches that I have listened to for four years have been consistently watered down. In the throne speech earlier this year for example, the Liberal government mentioned the agriculture industry in one paragraph. It said:

The government is dedicated to Canada's farm economy and to taking the steps necessary to safeguard access to international markets and to ensure that farmers are not left to bear alone the consequences of circumstances beyond their control.

Our farmers are still waiting for real action. It is possible that the government still does not realize how desperate the situation in agriculture has become. It reduced the level of attention paid in the throne speech to this serious problem. This is both regrettable and disturbing.

All Canadians had hoped for decisive, constructive and positive policies in the throne speech. It is a shame that the opposite is true.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I can see the member has a good handle on provincial and federal jurisdiction. Would she expand on where the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction creates inefficiencies in program delivery?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have heard just about everything. There is one example of a husband and wife who both thought they qualified for the program. They applied, then found out that one of their applications was not being processed and the other one was. When they did some investigating, they found out that their application went to Surrey. They had apparently used the envelope that the form had come in and it went to Surrey. When they did the investigating of this particular application, they were told that it should never have gone to Surrey. It should have gone to Winnipeg. That is the only place that processes these forms. That had held them up. The other member of the family got the form and it came from Winnipeg. It is just an example of the administrative errors.

That is a very small one, but I have heard many instances of people not qualifying. As we said earlier, many people spent a lot of money getting their accountants to fill out these forms and they just did not qualify. We can imagine what that must be like when we have bills to meet this fall. It is really getting tough. It is a hardship. I gave that example of people who are not even going to bother looking ahead a year. They may not be on that family farm which has been in that family for 90 or 100 years. They got their award this summer. That is how uncertain our future is in agriculture and CAIS is just another contribution.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy Royal.

The agriculture industry is on a downward spiral economically. In recent years all farmers, western and eastern, have been plagued by a number of obstacles, including drought, grasshoppers, frost, subsidy wars, trade disputes and the ongoing BSE border closure debacle. Farmers are losing their livelihood. The border closure has not only affected the beef producers in this country but it has affected many other sectors in agriculture.

I had the occasion to speak with Mr. Gordon Schroeder, member of the Saskatchewan Sheep Development Board, regarding the effects of the BSE border closure and its effect on the sheep industry, including a 60% drop in slaughter lamb prices and a 61% drop in ewe shop sales and a loss of major feedlot capacity.

He wants me to bring to the attention of the House that the inability to move animals across the border is a real concern for Canadian sheep producers. This problem is compounded by the fact that the industry does not have access to adequate federal slaughter capacity dedicated to killing lambs.

Under the current border restrictions boneless lamb could be exported, however this is not happening because of the problems with the lack of federal slaughter and processing capacity.

He would also like to bring to the attention of the House that the negotiations to open the border to sheep are complicated by the lack of a comprehensive national scrapie strategy and has requested that our producers be eligible for any additional enhancements to programs such as CAIS.

With the commitment of funding we are confident that the industry would emerge from the crisis on a competitive footing with the opportunity to again expand and prosper.

The obstacle to CAIS is the cash on deposit. The up front funding requirement prevents farmers from taking out full coverage on their operations. This was best described by the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster when he said that this was like a person wanting to insure a house for $100,000 and having to put $20,000 in a bank account before the insurance company would sell the person a premium.

The CAIS program is a five year average of nothing that equals nothing. The program does little but stabilize farm poverty. Farmers are continuing to go bankrupt. They lose their farms and they must seek work off the farm just to survive.

In Saskatchewan this year we will be celebrating our 100th birthday. As one of our members said earlier, we celebrate the intergenerational farms that have had their farms in their family name for 100 years.

I spoke with someone who was a recipient of this award this summer. This award was given to their family farm. The recipient had a choice between a sign posted at the driveway or a plaque in commemoration of this historical milestone. He took the plaque because that is how uncertain the future is on his farm, so that he could take the plaque with him when he does lose the farm.

The parliamentary secretary spoke of the formula that levels out the boom or bust. It does perhaps in his view level out the boom or bust but I believe we are in the bust.

Saskatchewan's 40% share of the CAIS program could range between $170 million and $300 million. However, the NDP provincial government has put a $99 million cap on the program, which, unfortunately, is an economic reality in Saskatchewan.

The farmer, with the help of an accountant, has completed and submitted an application for CAIS. This farmer in particular, due to the province's spending limit on CAIS, only one-quarter of the province's 40% program share is being paid right now. He writes:

On our farm we had built up a reasonably good reference margin from previous years. However, 2003 was next to an economic disaster for us because of the reduced grain prices and the effects of the BSE crisis.

He wanted to know if the difference between the province paying its full share of 40% versus the 10% at present would amount to a reduction of $28,000 from CAIS in 2003. If the producer was from Alberta or Manitoba and had the same income and expense numbers his support from CAIS would be $28,000 larger. That is a big difference.

The response from our province has always been the same on issues of dollars in agriculture. It cannot afford to fully fund CAIS. It cannot afford to reduce the education tax on farmland. It cannot afford to add money to the BSE assistance initiatives announced by the federal government. An article written by a local agriculture consultant says that farmers are frustrated with our government.

Agriculture was mentioned in the throne speech by one word but it was mentioned alongside other sectors. It was only mentioned in passing as the throne speech mentioned automotive, aerospace, other manufacturing as well as agriculture and other resource based industries, hardly a priority for our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the opening remarks of the member for Newmarket--Aurora.

She identified population growth in the region. Is it a concern of hers? What are her constituents telling her about this population growth?

Because she talked about trade, I have another question. In her view, what are the trade priorities?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I listened to the member for Selkirk--Interlake and I thought that here we have a brand new member of Parliament in the House of Commons who probably thought, like we had thought, that we would hear some real good things this week in the throne speech because it was mentioned in the last throne speech in February. Agriculture was actually addressed with a whole paragraph. This time it was addressed as such:

The Government will do its part to enable the success of important sectors, including automotive, aerospace and other manufacturing, as well as agriculture and other resource-based industries.

How important does the hon. member think agriculture is to the government?

[Gasoline Prices, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims that the skyrocketing price of gas is an international problem shared by our friends in Europe and around the world. I would like to point out that travel in Canada is vastly different from travel in Europe. My riding of Blackstrap is largely rural. Many constituents do not have the option of hopping on a bus or a train to get to work.

When will the government recognize its obligation to Canadians to provide fuel tax relief?