Carol Skelton

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that there were missing witnesses. I want to ask him if anyone from Health Canada or Public Health were at the hearings and what their comments were.

[Child Care, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, no election will undo the Liberal Party record on the creation of a national child care program. In 1993: a promise made, a promise broken. In 1997: the same promise made, the same promise broken. In 2000: again, promise made, promise broken. In 2004: yet again, the same promise made and broken.

The minister has backtracked on his promises. He no longer promises a national universal system. He says he will hand over some money to the provinces for a seed fund, maybe.

The Conservative Party supports children and families. A Conservative government would put families' choices first. We would let parents decide what is best for their children. We would provide options that respect every family's needs and priorities. We would support all families, especially those who need it. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.

We just do not think the Liberal Party that wants to legalize marijuana and prostitution is ready to raise anyone's children.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked so eloquently about what is happening in the farm communities. I would like him to tell the House more about what is happening to grain farmers in his area.

Some of the young people in that area know me and they have called me and talked of the things that are happening. I would like him to tell the House what the people in his riding are telling him about the grain industry.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to present 10 petitions from thousands of Canadians stating their position to me as a member of Parliament that they want us to retain the traditional definition of marriage and that Parliament recognize their feelings.

[Canadian 4-H Council, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, and especially in rural areas, 4-H is a part of growing up, a part of our heritage.

This week in Ottawa the Canadian 4-H Council will host its annual seminar on citizenship. This exciting event brings together 70 award winning 4-H members from across Canada.

I want to especially recognize Mitch Rolston of Delisle and Sarah Anderson of Sceptre. Through their outstanding achievements, they have earned a chance to experience an opportunity that only the nation's capital can provide. They will learn about the political system and their rights and responsibilities as Canadians. They will attend question period and will even hold their own parliamentary-style debate after hours of preparation. They will visit the Supreme Court and other Ottawa landmarks.

I am confident that this experience will leave a mark on them for their lifetime.

On behalf of the members of this House, I want to welcome them all to Ottawa.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while I am always pleased to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, I am personally disappointed that I have to rise yet again today on this issue.

Nonetheless, I feel it is my obligation to rise and speak on behalf of those who cannot: Canada's hepatitis C victims.

Last October 15 in question period the Liberal government reiterated its desire to keep thousands of hepatitis C victims from receiving compensation. Why? Simply because they did not get infected on the right day. This policy was beyond simple discrimination. It was a blatant example of political indifference toward those often too sick to fight for themselves.

When members of the House voted against extending the compensation to all victims, some members of the Liberal Party shed tears in an attempt to show some sort of sympathy for the thousands of innocent victims. Instead, all they did was show how cold-hearted and spineless they were when it came to standing up for their constituents and their convictions.

Today my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia along with others in the health committee have made another bold attempt to correct this wrong. The committee's report calls on the government to do what many reports have called on the government to do in the past. It is calling for the government to immediately provide compensation to hepatitis C victims without delay. That is what is right and that is what must take place.

There is no reason for delay. We know there is enough money in the original compensation fund to compensate all victims. Failure to do so before now is inexcusable. All the delay has done is deny compensation to thousands of victims who died before today. The government will likely take another few months to do the right thing and in the meantime more will die.

With the unanimous support of the health committee, a report was sent to the House for concurrence last year. The report requested that the government follow the Krever inquiry's recommendations and fully compensate all those infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood. The Liberals shamefully talked out the debate before the vote could be recorded.

Then on March 21 the committee passed another motion to request that the government immediately compensate all individuals infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood. This would sound like another trip around the same circus ring except for a new twist. Due to a new procedural rule in the House, any motion of concurrence of a committee report must be given three hours of debate and then voted on.

That is what we are doing here today. Clearly, we have not given up the fight for justice on this side of the House. The Liberals cannot talk this debate out and prevent a vote as they did last year. There will be no abdication of responsibility this time.

The Liberals know they failed to protect the national blood supply and that killed Canadians. Today, we have a much safer blood supply but a lack of vigilance to the safety of the system could cause us problems again. The government has shown a preference to protect itself before it protects the general public. One only needs to look at the multitude of inquiries in progress.

We in the Conservative Party have been calling for fairer, complete compensation for all innocent victims of the tainted blood scandal. We always have and we always will, so long as it is necessary. We have always said that those infected with hepatitis C unknowingly should not have to suffer any more than they have already.

We have heard the health minister say that he will discuss compensation for the excluded group of victims. Excuse us for being skeptical. Last time the lawyers got involved it cost a whopping $60 million. I am sure this time it will not be much different.

I hope the minister will ensure that victims get the compensation they deserve and that this does not become a financial boost for the legal community. If the minister can find a way to minimize legal costs and delays and get compensation to all those who deserve it, I will applaud his efforts. If he does not, I will not hesitate to tell every hepatitis C victim that the Liberals still care more about their party's survival than their survival.

The Liberal government likes to pretend that it treats all Canadians equally, but we know that is not the case and this issue only highlights this. We have two classes of victims and that is unacceptable. It was not the choice of the victim as to what day they became infected. If people get hepatitis C as a result of tainted blood, they are victims, period: no distinction, no second class.

This is a minority Parliament and I suspect this vote will pass. The only question now is the Prime Minister's willingness to act on his self-described democratic deficit. If the House votes in favour of this matter, it will be interesting to see what excuse the Prime Minister comes up with when ignoring the direction of the House. We know he ignored the committee and the appointment of Glen Murray to his patronage post. Ironically, it is my truly honourable colleague who won that riding instead of Mr. Murray. Given the actions of the Prime Minister and Glen Murray, I can only say for the constituents of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia that they made the right decision on election day.

On a final note, I would like to thank my other Conservative colleagues and those from the other opposition parties for continuing to stand up for what is right. A special thanks goes to Dr. Grant Hill, a former member of this House, for his tireless crusades to see justice done. Also, my friend, Joe Haché, continues to be an inspiration on this file. It is a privilege to stand and speak in the House on his behalf.

[National Ovarian Cancer Month Act, April 4th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, an act to designate the month of September as National Ovarian Cancer Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of thousands of Canadian women who have or will find out they have ovarian cancer. The bill would designate September as national ovarian cancer month, similar to those in other countries.

Each year 2,600 women are diagnosed with this cancer and one in 70 will get this cancer in their lifetime. The good news is that when detected early and treated, the survival rate is as high as 90%.

We need to fund research, testing and awareness. I sincerely hope my colleagues support this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Question No. 80, March 24th, 2005]

Did the government fund any irrigation related projects in Saskatchewan and, if so, what were they, what was their cost, who were the recipients, what was their purpose, what are the related studies to be completed and, if any, when are they expected to be completed?

(Return tabled)

[Petitions, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce nine petitions to the House of Commons from hundreds of Canadians who ask the government to preserve and protect the current traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the citizens of Prince Edward Island. They are calling on the government to return to its previous policy of allowing holy books to be made available to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies around this country.

Last year a citizenship judge terminated this policy alleging that the policy discriminated against non-religious immigrants. Until last year holy books were simply displayed on tables at the back of the hall, free for new citizens to take. The new citizens were not handed the books. The books were not forced on them. The judge produced no evidence to justify his inappropriate decision to ban the availability of holy books.

The petitioners ask that the Citizenship Commission return to the previous policy which served our multicultural nation so well.