Carol Skelton

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from citizens who ask that the Government of Canada amend the Canada Health Act and regulations to include IBI and ABA therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and require that all provinces provide or fund this treatment for autism.

Also, they ask that the government create academic chairs at universities across Canada so every Canadian with autism will be able to receive the very best treatment possible.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise with my colleagues from the Conservative Party and especially the members of Parliament from Saskatchewan. I want to congratulate my colleague from Prince Albert who has worked tirelessly on this whole issue since the year 2000 when we were elected.

As Canadians know, the concept of equalization is that the provinces that are better off help those that are less fortunate. What Canadians do not know is that the formula used to calculate this is complex. It varies by province and is in need of updating. The nation's economy has progressed, while these equalization formulas have not.

As a result some provinces are more equal than others. It has become a recipe for regional division and tension. Saskatchewan is simply not getting its fair share out of equalization. This situation is made worse by the fact that the province is sandwiched between the oil rich province of Alberta and the generously helped province of Manitoba. It only serves to highlight our problems.

We only want our fair share in order to ensure that our future is as bright and secure as those of our neighbours. I am confident that person to person every Canadian wants equality.

Just last week the Prime Minister visited Saskatoon, but refused to substantially negotiate or discuss the equalization matter with our premier. The premier, the Saskatchewan opposition leader and their parties, along with my Conservative colleagues from Saskatchewan have demanded that the Prime Minister deal with the matter. Our pleas fall on deaf ears.

The one opponent is Saskatchewan's lone Liberal MP, the finance minister. With the skill and knowledge of an ostrich, he has declared Saskatchewan a have province. The finance minister and the Prime Minister ignore the facts. More disturbing, they ignore their constitutional obligations to ensure that all provinces have the fiscal ability to provide equivalent public services.

Currently, Alberta and Ontario are considered have provinces because they are above the established benchmark. Their wealth is redistributed to the other eight provinces in an effort to reduce provincial discrepancies. Saskatchewan is far below the benchmark. Canada's average per capita income for 2003 was just above $29,000. In Saskatchewan it was almost $5,000 below that, over 15% less.

Saskatchewan faces challenges. Its population has increased 14% since the Great Depression, while other provincial populations have flourished. With major industries in crisis, a static population and mounting fiscal pressures, we cannot afford to wait forever for this federal government to attend to this problem. Saskatchewan already has the longest medical waiting times, while next door in Manitoba it has the shortest, one-quarter the length.

Does Saskatchewan receive more than Manitoba to fix the situation? Absolutely not. Saskatchewan receives $72 per person while Manitoba receives $1,600 per person. That amounts to almost $800 million per year for the last 10 years. This is hardly fair.

Now for the details and the reason why. Of the 33 tax bases used to calculate equalization, 13 target Saskatchewan's non-renewable resources such as oil, gas, potash and uranium. We all know about the recent federal provincial wars in Atlantic Canada over this very issue. With months of arm-twisting and public squabbling, the Prime Minister, with the assistance of our finance minister, finally lived up to his campaign pledge. Natural resources were removed from the equalization calculators, but the same does not go for Saskatchewan. Please remember that these federal Liberals have not yet delivered to the Atlantic provinces.

I must admit I was a little more than surprised when NDP Premier Lorne Calvert offered only timid support for the new Atlantic deal. Nonetheless I am pleased he and his party have agreed to work with Saskatchewan Party MLAs and Saskatchewan MPs to get a new deal for our province.

Saskatchewan should receive similar rates to Manitoba. If it did, there would be about $800 million more per year. Just imagine what $800 million would do to help hospitals, schools, roads, public transport, community services and even our tax rates. Not only do we receive less, but we have to pay more to compensate. This is just a plan for digging a hole, not filling one.

Changing the equalization formula could have many positive effects besides the quick infusion of additional cash. By delisting non-renewable resources from equalization calculations we could provide incentive to our business community to expand our economy around natural resources and become a true have province.

We need our NDP government in Saskatchewan to be supportive of our efforts to get a better deal for Saskatchewan. We need a provincial government that wants our province to prosper on the backs of its own industries. At the very least we need a provincial government that will hold the federal government to its constitutional obligations.

We need a finance minister who takes both his province and his portfolio seriously. From across the House, he has said that he does. He is failing on both accounts. I would not be surprised if his constituents sent him that message in the next election.

Bad work has bad results. Once again I stress that Saskatchewan does not want a free ride. We want a fair ride, Mr. Minister. We do not want a special deal. We want a fair deal, Mr. Minister. We do not want extra money. We just want our money, Mr. Minister. We want our fair share.

We do not want special constitutional treatment. We just want the Constitution as currently written to be upheld by the federal government. Quite simply, we not only want a new fair deal, we need one.

Our province cannot continue to dig a hole as those around us get to pile sand. It is only a matter of time before everything caves in.

I plead with the government and the minister across the way to negotiate a fair deal with the province of Saskatchewan and to do it without delay.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-38. This issue has generated a great deal of interest in my riding and across Canada. In fact, I have received more correspondence and more e-mails on this topic than almost all of the others I have spoken about in the House combined.

Canadians are now looking to us in the House to make choices and decisions that reflect their beliefs, their religions and their rights.

From the outset, I wish to say that my personal view is in support of the traditional definition of marriage, that being exclusively between a man and a woman.

Just as quickly, I wish to also state unequivocally that I believe two persons of the same gender can and should be able to live in a legal, committed, loving and recognized relationship. I have heard from my gay and lesbian constituents and I can honestly say I realize how personal this debate has become for them. I have heard devastating tales of workplace discrimination, social discrimination and most tragically, discrimination from within their own families. All of these are unacceptable and must not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

Having heard the arguments and comments from both sides of the debate, I believe we can all be equal under the law without having the definition of marriage altered. I firmly believe that so long as equal rights, obligations and responsibilities are conferred on all registered couples, there lies no discrimination. I also believe marriage, the “m” word if you will, should remain as a reference for heterosexual couples only. This I believe is in keeping with our charter which does provide guarantees for religious freedom and in turn, respect.

Nonetheless, I have also maintained that on issues of conscience such as this, I will refer to the direction of my constituents. This is not an abdication of my responsibility; it is my duty. I am elected to represent my constituents and I have promised to do so.

To ascertain their opinions I have used my household mailings for a survey, have tallied telephone calls from all constituents, correspondence and also the many conversations I have heard around the riding. Overwhelmingly, over 90% have demanded that I vote against redefining marriage. I made a promise to represent them in the House and I will. I will be voting against Bill C-38.

On a final note specifically to my gay, lesbian, transgendered and two-spirited community, I would like to assure them that I will continue to ensure that their registered relationships enjoy the same legal rights, responsibilities and obligations as other registered relationships. They play an important part in my community and they deserve the same respect as their neighbours. Any less is unacceptable.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the cities. He talked about his grandparents coming to Canada.

In the budget yesterday there was not much for rural Canada. I would like to know what he thinks about the sustainability of agriculture and the cheap food policy that the government has put on Canadian agriculture.

[Petitions, February 24th, 2005]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My constituents pray that Parliament defines and uses the traditional definition of marriage when it makes its final statement on the issue.

[Petitions, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present 13 petitions on behalf of the people of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar and citizens across Canada, stating: “We the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: whereas marriage defined as the lifelong union between one man and one woman is--

[Child Care, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Social Development confirmed that the Liberal day care scheme will not be free. Parents do not want to be forced to pay for institutional child care if they believe stay at home parenting is best for their family.

Parents want fair choices. Why is the minister going to compel parents to have others raise their children?

[Child Care, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are putting billions of dollars into a day care scheme, claiming it will provide 250,000 new child care spaces across Canada. Many parents are looking for these spaces simply because they cannot afford to raise their children at home or stay at home.

We believe that better stay at home options for parents would result in less demand for new spaces. How could the minister not agree?

[Health, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 21 years ago I lost my father to a massive heart attack. Today, heart attacks and strokes continue to be silent killers in every community.

Approximately 56% of Canadians do not meet the minimum recommended 30 minutes of daily physical activity. If they did, they would significantly reduce chronic diseases, such as heart disease.

Almost 50% of Canadians believe access to safe streets is also very important and 42% of Canadians support access to paths, trails and green space. A failing justice system is hurting our health. The need for affordable access to physical activity facilities and programs is a concern for 43% of Canadians.

Almost half of Canadians are obese or overweight, and 75% of Canadians believe government has a key role to play in promoting physical activity.

I am doing my share and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from the citizens asking that the support of the federal funding for juvenile type I diabetes research be done by the government so young people can be helped.