Carol Skelton

[Justice, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the mother-in-law of a police officer I resent what the solicitor general just said.

The RCMP commissioner admits cases are put on the back burner while the RCMP deals with terrorism. Organized crime, drug trafficking and now cases of child pornography and sexual abuse are falling through the cracks. This appalling scenario is a direct result of the government's gutting of the RCMP budget.

Will the solicitor general immediately ensure that the RCMP is sufficiently staffed and funded so that our children stop falling prey to sadistic pedophiles?

[Justice, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, more than two month ago British intelligence agents gave evidence that 8 Canadians were suspected of child abuse and child pornography and 120 people in more than a dozen countries have been arrested. We know there are suspects in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia but no one has been apprehended in this country.

I ask the solicitor general, why have Canadians not been arrested?

[Western Canada, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the mid-term convention of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Resolution No. 6 put forward by the RM of Sarnia stated that due to Saskatchewan having little input into our central Canadian political system and the fact that the current government seems not to care about the crisis in agriculture, the possibility of joining the United States should be investigated.

The motion was defeated by a small margin but its introduction certainly says something about the current state of life on the prairies. There is a prevailing feeling of alienation. This alienation is not self-imposed but caused by the example given by the government that anything east of Quebec or west of Ontario is of little consequence.

I am saddened that the government has chosen by its actions, and in most cases lack of action, to provoke such strong feelings of alienation.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day which recognizes the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989.

It has been said many times that our children are our future. This is definitely the case. We must stand together to protect our children and ensure a future for them. We must strive to build healthy relationships with the children in our lives.

A great amount of joy can be found with the time spent with our children. We must encourage their talents, applaud their achievements, nurture their spirits and instill in them a love for learning and exploration.

If today's children are to become tomorrow's leaders we must do all we can to provide for them a country with a sound future, a country that is economically and socially viable, a place they can call home. I encourage all those who have children in their lives to take time today to continue to guarantee for them a bright and happy future.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 2001]

You should talk to producers.

[Children of Divorced Parents, November 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address Motion No. 186 from the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River and its relation to children's rights and needs in divorce proceedings.

Children are often looked at or viewed as property when parents divorce, but they are not simply another thing that needs to be argued over. These children have real feelings, fears and concerns. Often they feel that somehow the divorce is their fault. They wonder if they could have done something to bring it about. To not have their concerns addressed causes further damage to their fragile emotions.

A joint committee was established by the Liberal government to look at the issue of child custody and access. The results were published in 1998 and were then promptly overlooked by this government. I believe that there are some very important points in the report the committee released. The report is called “For the Sake of the Children”. What an excellent title for this topic.

Currently the Divorce Act states that decisions made in custody and access cases are to be in “the best interests of the child”. It fails to state who is to decide what constitutes the best interests of the child: a parent, a judge, a lawyer, a court, or a social worker. The voice of the child is often not included in the decision making process.

One of the mandates of this committee was:

--to assess the need for a more child-centred approach to family law policies and practices that would emphasize parental responsibilities rather than parental rights and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests--

The motion before us today deals with three areas of change in regard to child custody and access, the first being that children have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions are being made that would affect them. Child custody and access should not be about the ownership of the child but rather what environment would be the best for the healthy development of that child, including social, emotional, physical and psychological development.

During the course of the study in “For the Sake of the Children”, many children of divorce were interviewed about their thoughts and ideas about divorce and access. This is what two of the children had to say: “They think you are nine years old and don't know anything. But it's your life”, and, “They're deciding your life and they don't even know you”.

Decisions about the futures of these children are being made by an anonymous person, a judge, who is certainly well intentioned but does not really know these children. Kathleen McNeil, representing Mom's House-Dad's House, stated before the committee:

When one takes the time to listen to the children and truly places their interests first, a greatly different picture can emerge as to what ought to be done in each individual family...Children find it incomprehensible that some unseen person called a judge has said that from now on, one parent...is someone you now have visits with, and not very often. You aren't going to see your parent every day--

The second part of the motion states that children should have the opportunity to share their views and ideas with a skilled professional who in turn would relay those views to any judge, assessor or mediator facilitating a shared parenting agreement.

This would allow children the opportunity to sit down with an unbiased person and let them know what they would like to see done. Their feelings and fears would be taken into consideration. Often children feel out of control. They feel that they have no say in the situation. The decision to divorce was that of their parents. Allowing the children to share their thoughts and ideas gives them a sense of control in this otherwise unstable situation. Traditionally adults are the ones with the power to make all the decisions, leaving children waiting in the wings for the outcome. The court would have the opportunity to get to know the children and therefore make a more accurate determination of what their best interests are when deciding custody and access.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child was ratified by Canada in 1991. Article 12 of the convention provides for children to have the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them. The federal and provincial governments need to work together to develop a framework that would guarantee that the voices of children of divorce are heard, and not only heard but taken seriously.

Who knows the feelings of a child better than that very child? Part (c) of this motion outlines provisions for a third party, typically a family member, to help represent a child's interests during parental separation or divorce. For children to have a trusted family member near with encouraging words, to hold their hand and help make their voices heard, would be an effective way of empowering children. It would be reassuring to have a loved one near when mom and dad are struggling themselves. Some would say that court appointed representation would be the answer, but that again raises the issue of decisions being made by an individual who does not really know the child. A family member or friend would be better equipped for the position.

One of my concerns is that there are no age limitations in this motion. A child of 3 years is far less likely to fully understand the situation and the ramifications of their actions than a child of 10 or 12. This needs to be considered.

Also in regard to part (c) pertaining to third party representation, I believe the individual should be mutually agreed upon by the parents and the child. Children in the process of divorce are emotionally vulnerable and need to be protected. There would be an opportunity for the third party to sway the child or plant ideas. If the third party were to be agreed upon by all parties involved it would help to ensure a healthy support system for the child.

I believe that more can be and needs to be done to protect the emotional and psychological well-being of children in our country when it comes to divorce proceedings. Healthy children grow into healthy adults. As the number of divorces in Canada continues to rise so too will the number of children affected. We cannot ignore their voices. Without active participation in a decision making process it will be difficult for these children to fully accept the decisions being made.

Instead of presenting children with an adversarial environment, we need to ensure that they feel protected. They need to feel that their wishes, thoughts and feelings are being taken into consideration. Making them part of the solution instead of leaving them on the sidelines would be beneficial to all parties involved.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Prince George--Peace River on the motion. I feel that this would be a positive step in helping to protect our children. The report “For the Sake of the Children” provides an excellent look at the difficulties faced by parents, children and others involved in divorce proceedings in our country. I am saddened that the Liberal government refuses to look at this report or to act on the recommendations from the committee. Positive changes would be possible if the government would listen to the recommendations and to the voices of the children who are affected every day by divorce.

I support the hon. member's motion and I am hopeful that members opposite will see the benefits that this type of reform would provide.

[Down's Syndrome, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, November 1 to November 7 is National Down's Syndrome Awareness Week. Currently 1 in 900 children in Canada are born with this chromosomal disorder. It causes delays in the physical and intellectual development of these children.

While this disorder seems to be a limiting factor, many individuals with Down's syndrome are able to lead active and productive lives. They have many unique abilities and strengths. Down's syndrome adults are able to live independently, hold jobs and contribute to their communities.

During this awareness week I applaud the organizations and community groups that help those with Down's syndrome. I also congratulate those individuals with Dow's syndrome and their families as they face limitations with strength and determination.

[Literacy Action Day, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in recognition of the eighth annual Literacy Action Day. I had the opportunity this morning to meet with Don Pinay, a Yorkton tribal councillor and elder Irene Yuzicuppi from the Saskatchewan Literacy Network. These people are very concerned about literacy and are actively promoting literacy programs in their community.

Currently over 20% of Canada's population does not read well. There are many things that we can do in support of literacy: read to our children, volunteer with literacy programs and encourage those around us to be lifelong learners.

We tend to equate the ability to read with intelligence. This is not the case. We do not know what happened along the path of learning for those who struggle with illiteracy. We need to offer our support and encouragement to those who now desire to learn. I applaud those who are making the decision to become lifelong learners.

[Strychnine Solutions, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I support my colleague from Lakeland in his request for information on the studies of strychnine that led to the ban of the 2% and the 5% varieties of strychnine poison used against the Richardson's ground squirrel or gopher.

I spent the weekend in Ottawa and in my area of the city I noticed a tremendous number of squirrels. The little fellows were gathering nuts and burying them. I did not get that close to them, but I want to compare them to Richardson's ground squirrels or gophers.

Tulips were planted this weekend on Parliament Hill. If each one of those little Richardson's ground squirrels ate a tulip it would be a problem in the city of Ottawa. If we look at one pasture in Saskatchewan or Alberta gopher holes are as close as the tulips that were being planted. Members should imagine the kind of devastation that is created for a farmer, rancher or whoever owns a property where gopher holes are as close to each other as those tulips.

The hon. member talked about badgers. Badgers move in and create huge holes that cause extra problems because wildlife falls in them. There are fawns, antelope, horses and cattle with broken legs. This creates economic problems for the farmer or rancher.

My colleague from Lakeland is only asking for information from the government proving that studies were done before strychnine was removed. All that we have received are seven letters. The government removed a product from the market, which is causing great hardship to Alberta and Saskatchewan farmers.

The Government of Canada and the provinces compensate agriculturalists if they have waterfall damage or if deer and elk cause problems on their farms.

Concerns have been raised regarding the impact on other wildlife and the use of strychnine. A fox, wolf or coyote would have to consume 40 to 50 gophers or poisoned animals at one time to be affected. There are also concerns for birds picking at the gophers. They would have to consume approximately 5 to 15 animals. Any of the birds at home could not consume one gopher let alone 5 to 15 of them to be affected. I have concerns about that.

We want the studies and the information. The hon. member for Lakeland wants to know what kind of studies were carried out by the government.

The Richardson's ground squirrel has become an epidemic on the prairies. The gopher or the Richardson's ground squirrel is very well known. The mascots of the Saskatchewan Roughriders are gophers. Gainer and Leonard are the most popular thing on the field in Saskatchewan right now because our football team is having a hard time, but we love the gophers. Gainer and Leonard can be pests at football games because they tend to sneak up behind people and scare them, and they make a lot of noise when we score a touchdown. However the real pests are a great concern to Saskatchewan farmers.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health said that there are products on the market to control these pests. There are no products at all on the market to control the Richardson's ground squirrel, therefore we are asking for help. There is no proof that non-targeted animals have died because of the use of strychnine. The information from the hon. member for Lakeland showed that the animals that lost their lives were targeted by criminal activity. If there is scientific, absolute proof, we would like the government to release those findings.

We looked at the economic problems that a gopher can cause. We said that 123 gophers, and this has been studied, can consume up to a tonne of feed, which translates into damages of $15,000 to $16,000 per quarter of land. Total losses to farmers are reaching into tens of millions of dollars in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is a huge problem.

In studies that were done by the Alberta Cattle Commission, and this was another thing that the hon. secretary brought up, in regard to the use of strychnine, the commission used test markets and the values that they were supposed to use. There were eight tests. In one test, it was as low as 11% effective. That is what they were doing in Alberta. For the highest number ranchers had to do three applications of the strychnine mixture and the result was 75%.

Imagine planting those tulip bulbs on a quarter section of land or 160 acres or tens of thousands of acres like a lot of our ranchers have and going into a field with a little bucket of strychnine and oats and dropping it down a gopher hole over and over. I should have counted how many people were planting tulips out in front of the building this weekend. Imagine one farmer or his family out covering let us say 10,000 acres with a bucket of oats. It just does not work. We are not getting effective and real progress from the government in getting help for western Canadian agriculturalists.

We are asking for information, and that is what the hon. member for Lakeland is asking for.

Farmers in Unity, Saskatchewan, have created a gophinator which will look after the gopher problem. It uses anhydrous ammonia, which farmers apply right across Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan every spring. It is a fertilizer.

If I went out with my cultivator in the spring and cultivated my pastures with an anhydrous tank behind my cultivator I could get rid of the gophers, but who wants to cultivate pastures? One just does not do that. It is not natural. If the gophinator could be patented and used properly, that would be done.

I am just asking for the people in the House to approve the hon. member for Lakeland's application for information. That is all we are asking for. On behalf of farmers and ranchers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I ask that the House do that.

[Canada Winter Games, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to travel to New Brunswick this fall. The residents of the cities of Bathurst and Campbellton were warm and inviting.

While there I learned that these cities will jointly host the 2003 Canada Winter Games. The Minister of Labour awarded the games to the Bathurst-Campbellton bid committee in 1999.

These games will see participants from Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The games will provide an opportunity for dedicated athletes to participate and compete against their peers. Races will be won, awards will be presented and friendships will be formed.

I was also made aware during that visit that the minister made a campaign promise to provide $2.5 million for these games. Has the minister fulfilled her promise to the people of New Brunswick and the Canadian athletes of the 2003 Canada Winter Games?