Carol Skelton

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague. This summer I was speaking to an editor of a livestock magazine at the Canadian junior Hereford show in Regina. He spoke about the hardship that his industry was experiencing with livestock publications and with all our farm magazines. It is just one area in the whole agricultural industry that is really suffering. What are the hon. member's communities saying about all the other hardships that are being experienced in agriculture?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to tell my hon. colleague that I am not aware of the whole situation and I would prefer to have my colleague who looks after fisheries comment. My expertise is in regard to the fishermen cops who we have in Saskatchewan. We would gladly give them to the member.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We must allow parents to raise their children and make the proper decisions on how those children are raised.

My daughter in fact had a nanny at one time in her life when it was a necessity. I have a son that is at home with his two daughters while his wife is at work because he has a disability.

Our families have to make those choices and that is the proper way of doing it. Being from a rural community I look at a rural area compared to a downtown in one of our large cities. There are so many different things that we have to look at.

We must ensure that there is a proper plan and that it is done properly. That is why I am looking forward to seeing what the government brings forward and if it does indeed bring forward a child care program.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

First, I begin by congratulating you on your return as our Speaker. Your steady hand in the past has given us the confidence to move forward with the challenges a minority government situation can bring.

I would also like to thank my constituents for returning me to Ottawa as their representative. Their support and encouragement is humbling. I look forward to exceeding all their expectations. The campaign seemed very brief, but I met many of the new constituents.

I would like to especially thank at this time all those who took the time to assist with my campaign, while putting my aspects of their person lives on hold. Their participation in our democracy is a gift to us all. Thanks again.

This week we heard the Speech from the Throne, and many of us could be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu. Much of what we heard was recycled, rehashed, repromised Liberal letdown. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Given that the Prime Minister has been in power for almost a year, and planning for a decade before that, I expected much more. I expected a vision, a focus for Canada, organized priorities with organized goals. Instead of a finely trimmed racing schooner heading for the finish line, we see a government that resembles a dinghy floating on an ocean, lost, drifting and in desperate need of a plan.

Nonetheless, the government reoffered its throne speech again. Again the Liberals have promised to introduce a national child care program. This is a promise that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien promised three times before and failed to deliver on. Now, under much of the same cabinet, the Prime Minister has promised the same thing yet again.

The government is promising a quarter of a million spots within the next five years. This plan apparently will cost $5 billion. However, before we get too excited, let us not forget that this is the same government that promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Instead of achieving their goal, it bought new VIP jets for themselves. Life is about choices and choices are about priorities.

The Conservative Party believes that parents should have the tools and the choices to care for their children. Good child care is important to the Conservative Party. We know parents will choose what is best for their children, and we believe parental choice is imperative because different families have different needs. Child care needs in our rural communities are vastly different from those in the centre of our urban centres. One size will not fit all.

I must admit that it is difficult to comment on this program as the government has yet to table legislation or even lay out a proposal. I guess a decade was not enough time to prepare.

In one form or the other it has been promised before, but the Liberals have failed to deliver. We will have to take a wait and see approach until this government determines if it actually intends to deliver on its promise this time. It is quite a record of broken red book and throne speech promises.

Child care is a provincial responsibility. There are serious logistical, jurisdictional and economic issues that must be better explained by the federal government before we can move ahead. Universal daycare is something that will require the cooperation of the provinces and the federal government. How would such a program be implemented and, more important, audited for cost and performance?

We have seen programs, such as the national gun registry, stray far from its original mandate, goals and budget. There are only so many boondoggles that one government can afford.

The government does not have a good track record of dealing with the provinces on jurisdictional issues. Given that the Romanow report came out several years ago and it took until this fall for the deal to be hammered out, we cannot realistically expect anything for a long time.

Child care is very different. In each corner of the country, local and provincial governments have already realized this. By the time regional, cultural and economic adjustments are made for each party of the country, we end up with anything but a national program.

In addition, we are interested to know what side deals will be negotiated with various provinces, as we saw in the recent health agreement. How much control will the federal government have over its funding and how much control does the federal government want over its funding?

As members can see, this is a complex matter that will require a lot more information from the government before we can get an accurate picture of where the government intends to go on this issue. We believe all professional child care providers should be properly qualified and certified. This is also a provincial responsibility, but the federal government can encourage a minimum national standard. Provincial jurisdictions must be respected.

I do want to stress that whatever plan the government proposes, it must not limit the options available to parents. Parents must have fair options to choose how to raise their own children. Parents choose their child care arrangements based on many things other than just budget constrictions. Child care can be based on cultural preferences, language preferences, educational options, location of service, family needs, medical needs and many other priorities. These are important criteria that must be incorporated into any proposal.

Another area I wish to touch upon is the lack of attention in the throne speech to the plight of our rural agricultural communities. These communities have been devastated by years of unexpected, unprecedented challenges that have pushed farm families to the brink of ruin. Many have left the land and many others are running out of options to stay on the land.

The CAIS program and CFIP are a joke. They have failed to deliver the help when and where needed. The frustration that farmers have experienced with these programs have only added to the stress and the strain of the situation. The government needs to listen to our farm families to better meet their unique needs. So far that has not been the case.

Unfortunately, the throne speech offers little as far as hope and solutions go. While I am not surprised, I am very disappointed. In fact this is part of a disturbing pattern of growing indifference from the Liberals to agriculture.

In the throne speech agriculture received no more than a single word of reference in passing. The throne speech before contained just two sentences of attention to farm families, a significant drop from the speech before when they received 14 seconds of discussion in the speech. Sadly, I would not be surprised if the next speech contained nothing for Canada's suffering farm families and the agricultural industry.

This situation is unacceptable and the Prime Minister should be ashamed for turning his back on his election promises. He promised to make agriculture a priority and he has failed. So much for dealing with major issues facing those in agricultural communities and agricultural industries in the agricultural sector.

The finance minister should also be ashamed of his participation and lack of influence in this situation. The people of Saskatchewan not only expected better, but he promised better. I expected more from a man who has been chasing the job of prime minister for so long. I also expected better from a government that needs to earn the respect and the support of Canadians.

Before I sit down, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your position.

[Justice, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the crime rate in certain areas of Saskatoon is on the rise. As the member of Parliament for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, this is of grave concern to myself and my constituents.

Limited resources, a failing justice system, and a federal government that turns a blind eye is making it worse. Break and enters and home invasion have people scared, and living in fear in their own homes. The whole community is suffering because of this.

About 82% of my constituents said child prostitution was a problem in their neighbourhood and 82% believed date rape drugs should be classified as a weapon. Some 18% knew a victim and 80% said mandatory minimum sentences would better protect the public. Close to 93% said current sentences were too lenient and 89% said the Liberals were soft on crime. Not a single person said they were doing a good job of running our prisons.

My constituents have spoken. Why will the government not listen?

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the NDP government in Saskatchewan sending compensation patients out of province for MRIs and diagnosis that they need? How does he feel about that?

[Senior Citizens, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada there are seniors who are struggling to meet the rising costs of basics. Groceries, housing, taxes and general necessities are quickly eroding their limited budgets.

Canada's seniors do not expect the government to keep them in the lap of luxury, but they are expecting to be kept out of poverty.

The Liberal government has been quick to reward its friends, hands out bonuses to almost everyone and wastes money at every turn.

Let us ensure our seniors can live out their lives in dignity within a safe and friendly Canada that they worked to develop. They did not work for a Canada whose social programs are scaled back at the very same time as their income.

How long does the Liberal government expect our seniors to continue doing more and more with less and less?

[Justice, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the exploitation and abuse of children in the sex trade is a growing global problem. The government has failed to deal with the Canadian problem in the past 11 years.

When will the government deal with this and protect our children from this horrendous abuse?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak about our 2004 budget.

It is less than a month since the finance minister told Parliament what he would do for Canadians, but already it is a distant and fading memory for most of us. Why? Because it was so lacklustre, so uninspiring and so void of vision that it failed to set a new course for the Prime Minister.

Canadians had many hopes for this Prime Minister. They hoped that he would be different, better and more in tune with our needs and concerns, but it seems not. The budget failed. It failed to help those in need and it failed to provide a sense of direction for the government and for the country as a whole. In fact it only proved how much the change in the Prime Minister's office was merely symbolic. It has proved that the government, after a decade of absolute power, has become lost and ineffective.

The Prime Minister has proved that the budget was no more than a blank page as most funding announcements have come out in the weeks since.

Many of the problems highlighted in the speech are a direct result of mismanagement by the government. The government has made the mess and now it wants Canadians to crowd around it to watch it clean it up.

Creative funding schemes to students would not be necessary if the government had not gutted the education transfers to the provinces in the 1990s. Instead of creating bureaucratic programs that support students via a piecemeal approach, why not just restore the funding that was cut by this Prime Minister?

The same goes for health care. Instead of having photo op conferences, why not just restore significant health funding to the provinces to replace the $25 billion that the Prime Minister cut before?

The government has perfected the art of making simple into the complex. Unfortunately, it is the Canadian taxpayer who has to fund this short-sighted trial and error approach. Instead of cutting taxes for the working poor, the government wants to add extra layers of expense by sending out rebate cheques. Instead of making the hiring of additional employees affordable, the government taxes small business into bankruptcy.

The EI fund is perhaps the largest scandal we have, but it barely registers on the front pages. The government in every city on every day with every worker takes more taxes than it needs to. Then when those workers lose their jobs, the same government that has robbed them turns around and denies them the benefits they are forced to support.

Why did the finance minister not rise up and correct the overtaxation problem in his speech? The Auditor General has highlighted this overtaxation and so has the opposition and so have businesses, small and large, and so has every worker who has to pay into this over inflated program.

We have called on the government to correct this problem, but obviously all such requests are falling on deaf ears. The government has had 11 years of governing with a significant majority and still these problems exist. If it has not done it by now, we can fairly conclude that it never will. It has had 11 years with a majority government. What have the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance been waiting for? Why are they stalling?

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance personally have the economic means to wait for better government, but most Canadians do not. Statistics continually show that the poor, including the working poor, continue to become poorer every year. My colleague has mentioned that 105 million children are living in poverty in Canada. That is shameful.

The income gap is growing and those who are at the bottom cannot afford to wait for better government. They need help today.

Students struggling under a ballooning debt load need to see light at the end of the tunnel. They need relief now.

Dual income, working poor families need tax relief today, not on next year's income tax return. They need to buy groceries every week, not just the week that the GST tax refund comes in. Let us leave the money in the pockets of those who need it most.

Our seniors, for example, have been ignored and neglected for far too long. Their pensions should be indexed to keep up with inflation and to maintain their purchasing power. Our seniors need proper medical attention today, not in six months or longer. For someone with a shrinking life expectancy, two, three, four years of waiting is a cruel joke. By the time this summer's health meeting finishes, it will have been almost two years since the Romanow report was completed. Based on the government's record, we might be able to expect results no sooner than 2006.

We as Conservatives would fund health care in a responsible, transparent and accountable fashion that would lead to shorter waiting lists and better standards across Canada.

A Conservative government would bring the much needed reforms to the finances of the country. We would begin by ensuring that those needing help would be at the front of the line, not Liberal donors. We would focus spending on the core responsibilities of the federal government, instead of handing out ineffectual cheques on wasteful and dubious projects. We would heed the advice of the Auditor General and end the overtaxation of working Canadians in the EI fund. People earned their money and they deserve to keep it. We would stop playing favourites with regions and political friends. We would ensure government spending met with the higher standards of scrutiny and accountability.

A Conservative government would have a long term vision for Canada, which would focus on things like debt repayment and program sustainability. A quarter of all government spending goes to debt servicing. If 25% of people's income went to just paying interest on their credit cards, what would be one of the first priorities? Imagine how wealthy the country could be if we had 25% more money in our federal budget. Soon Alberta will be debt free and we will see what a difference that will make the lives of the citizens who live there.

A Conservative government would provide all Canadians with a predictable, stable, well planned future for Canada. When Liberal monetary policy basically consists of political favours and crisis control, we all lose. In my riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, we expected more and were disappointed with what we heard. We expected more and got less.

Before I end my speech, I would like to comment on the post-budget campaign tour being conducted by our Prime Minister and his cabinet. These campaign announcements and photo ops are costing taxpayers ridiculous amounts of money. When the Prime Minister came to Saskatoon to save his party's reputation, it cost taxpayers approximately $22,000 one way. That $22,000 was the cost of the jet alone. It did not include staff, hotels, security, audiovisual equipment and other related costs.

The median family income in my riding is $36,000. It is easy to see why my constituents are not pleased or impressed with the presence of the Prime Minister. Just think about it. Several families in my riding work 50 weeks or more at one or more jobs, being paid low salaries for an entire year just to be graced by the Prime Minister for a few hours. I am betting they would have appreciated a reduction in their taxes a lot more.

One definitely cannot feed a family of four on a front page photo op. It is time our high flying cabinet acknowledged the real cost of its taxpayer funded pre-election campaign. Maybe it just needs to be reminded at the poll.

[Question No. 52, April 19th, 2004]

What, in detail, are all of the costs associated with the Non-Insured Health Benefits program from its inception to the present time?

Return tabled.