Carol Skelton

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, parents want choice in how they care for their children. Unfortunately, parents in rural areas have less choice than those in urban areas. When I say two tier, I mean that there are parents who are not going to be able to access the program the way the minister is talking about. Therefore, the minister is favouring urban families, because many rural communities cannot sustain formal child care centres. In many cases it is flexible, seasonal child care that rural families require, not regular nine to five workday care.

Why will the minister not allow the creation of a truly national program that treats children everywhere equally within a framework based on flexible parental choice and family needs?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister and the deputy ministers for being here this evening.

I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Simcoe--Grey in this first round.

On December 10 in this House the minister said:

Mr. Speaker, the way in which Canadians look at important programs like education, health care and child care is that those are things that should be available to all Canadians...That is why we are going ahead the way we are going ahead.

It is clear that we are getting two tier day care here. The Liberal program will not be available to all Canadians. The Liberal program will have winners and losers. Why can parents not have a fair financial choice when it comes to choosing how to raise their children?

[Question No. 130, May 13th, 2005]

With regard to phage, bacteriophage and antibiotic therapies, what, if any, research has been conducted, programs implemented or funding provided by the government?

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of people in Vanscoy, Saskatchewan asking that the Government of Canada create new drug laws that penalize people who are involved in the drug trade.

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce two petitions to the House, one from my own village of Harris, Saskatchewan. The petitioners ask that the government quit closing rural post offices and that it look at rural Canada as essential to our country's viability.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, being from a province that the member says does not have a lighthouse, I must say that we do have one very small lighthouse that I know of. It is at Cochin, Saskatchewan, on the edge of a lake, but it is very small.

My hon. colleague mentioned privatization. Is this what the government has been doing? Could he further explain that whole idea for me?

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague totally, but I also want to remind him that besides the firefighters, we have all other emergency personnel at whom we have to look very seriously. The general population has to accept that these people are in a continuous line of fire and that there is always a chance for them to develop disabilities because of their positions. I hope the bill goes one step further in protecting all the people whom we need to protect us.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of my constituents and the Conservative Party of Canada to speak to the amendments to Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act.

We have passed a series of amendments from our colleagues in the other place with the intent of approving the bill we sent to them. We have reviewed these proposals and agree with them. The amendments will bring additional oversight and accountability to this important legislation, which was lacking in the version the government has sent them before.

For the benefit of those who do not have the bill text before them, I will get to the heart of these amendments.

The original bill did not call for the oversight of both Houses of Parliament, but the proposed amendments would correct this. Should the Quarantine Act need to be enforced, this extra layer of prudence would be essential in ensuring the proper application. In addition, the amendments also call for and facilitate the ability to have public meetings and hearings regarding the act and its applications.

Once again, I welcome this change. It adds an extra layer of protection for Canadians affected and also allows for a broader consultation process. I would expect that at these hearings, if ever held, it would allow experts and affected Canadians to be heard. I support this approach.

I have been hearing many things regarding our preparedness for such a situation and the news at times is not encouraging. Recently I met with firefighters who informed me that over 70% of them do not have the necessary nuclear, biological and chemical emergency training. This worries me greatly, especially as I have had emergency preparedness training and know how important it is for first responders to have the training and tools to do their jobs. If they fail, so do those who follow.

I call upon the government to step forward and ensure that this training takes place as soon as possible. The next pandemic can take place at any time, and this training takes time. Such emergency training also needs to take place for those in our hospital emergency rooms.

Recently I met with our next generation of doctors. They have said that they would welcome this training, but believe that it is also essential. They and I agreed that if medical students were paid to take the training during their academic recess, they would graduate with proper training. What would be better than having our next generation of doctors enter service fully trained and without reducing current staffing levels in the process?

The legislation is just a piece of paper. It alone cannot protect Canadians. It is the people behind it who need to be prepared. In a pandemic situation, running through the streets and waving copies of this bill will not make us safe. Proper training and resources will. My colleagues and I will support the amendments, but we also will do so at the same time that we call for further action; action, not words.

SARS proved that hindsight is twenty-twenty. SARS has also proved that pandemics can cost human lives. Let us not repeat those mistakes.

[Mental Health Awareness Week, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a healthy body goes hand in hand with a healthy mind. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. It is an excellent opportunity to educate those directly and indirectly affected by mental health issues.

The Canadian Mental Health Association stresses the connection between physical and mental health.

Mental health can be achieved through many ways. A realistic attitude, draw on that optimism, have a sense of perspective and flexibility. Enhance one's self-confidence and self-esteem. Focus on the qualities that make someone a good friend, a valued colleague, a loving parent or family member. Seek emotional support; close ties with family and friends builds support networks and, in turn, helps others. Giving our minds and bodies a workout by engaging in a variety of mental activities, such as reading or puzzles, enhances mental agility and promotes overall wellness.

I encourage all Canadians to take time to assess their mental health and improve it.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise on behalf of my constituents and present two petitions which ask Parliament that marriage be defined in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.