Carol Skelton

[Arts and Culture, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Beth Robertson and Elaine Kowpak put Harris, Saskatchewan on the map. These two ladies were already well known locally as the writers and producers of the Harris Ruby Rush Days famous vignettes. Their latest production has taken them places they have never dreamed.

I first saw their performance of “The Pull of the Land” in the Harris-Tessier School, but it soon garnered national attention with its story of modern farm life in Saskatchewan. The stories are told from the points of view of various family members, set to clever dialogue and music. The actors are drawn from the talent within our local community.

Their productions are a labour of love and have benefited the local church, community hall and health centre. They have found an imaginative and entertaining way to relive, recreate and restore much of the culture of rural Saskatchewan.

Our community and our country is richer as a result. We thank them both.

[Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies has been awarded the Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award by the American Atlas Economic Research Foundation, an international honour for excellence in public policy work.

AIMS has won this prestigious award four times in just eight years, an impressive record of achievement.

AIMS was presented the award for its innovative project on Canadian health care reform. The study is a comprehensive proposal for reforming the Canadian health care system.

The report was written by: Dr. Brian Lee Crowley, the founding president of AIMS; Professor Brian Ferguson, University of Guelph; Dr. David Zitner, Dalhousie Medical School; and Brett Skinner, University of Western Ontario.

The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies deserves credit for its internationally recognized contribution to a more informed debate on health care for the 21st century.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the amendments introduced by the member for Provencher to Bill C-250.

Over the course of the past several months, my office has been flooded with mail from Canadians who are concerned that Bill C-250 will have negative consequences on their right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

While the Canadian Alliance rejects hatred directed at any group in Canada, it has consistently expressed concern about Bill C-250 on the basis that it raises serious concerns for fundamental freedoms.

While the bill has good intentions, good intentions often have unintended consequences, and when those intentions form part of our laws, the impact can significantly interfere with the ability of people to communicate or to adhere to essential matters of personal belief, religious or otherwise.

There are many court cases that the hon. member for Provencher brought forward. He talked about the Keegstra case in the Supreme Court and the Harding case in the Ontario Court of Appeal. The judges ruled that these defences would not significantly narrow the application of section 319(2).

The Harding case ruling significantly lowered the mens rea requirements by changing the standard from wilful promotion of hatred to wilful blindness. If a person failed to think about the possibility that his or her statements could promote hatred and a court decided that the works or writings did in fact promote hatred, that person would face conviction under this section.

It is for these reasons that the amendment presented by the member for Scarborough--Rouge River would only slightly amend the religious freedom defence as it applied to subsection (2) and it would not alleviate our concerns in any significant way.

Rather than relying on the current defences, which have been significantly narrowed by judicial interpretation, religious freedom would be better protected by a clearer exemption for religious text and religious instruction. One of the rejected amendments from the member for Provencher had that exact intention. It reads:

Nothing in section 318, 319 or 320 prohibits or restricts:

(a) dissemination of religious scriptures or texts;

(b) religious instruction based on, or public or private expression concerning, religious scriptures or texts;

(c) providing professional advice, or expressing a professional opinion regarding sexual orientation, including advice or opinions on medical, psychological or other treatment; or

(d) anyone from expressing their opinion on teaching materials concerning sexual orientation.

It is unfortunate that this amendment was not deemed in order by the Speaker of the House, since many members, including myself, will not be able to support the bill without those protections and exemptions.

While the Canadian Alliance opposes advocating hatred directed against any group of people, an unamended Bill C-250 is clearly not an appropriate legislative response to prevent the expression of hatred. The constitutional rights and freedoms of one group of Canadians should not be bartered away through an ill-conceived proposal to advance the interests of another group. Without additional amendments to safeguard these freedoms, I cannot support the bill.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too have petitions with 30,000 names. The petitioners call upon the government to reconsider the way it regulates and monitors natural health products and treatments.

These Canadians believe natural health products are safe and effective. They believe that decades of safe use should be the primary consideration when determining freedom of access. These Canadians are concerned that the government's new rules and regulations will unnecessarily restrict the access to medications and treatments they have safely used for many years.

[Business of the House, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if he has checked with both his leaders and has their permission to give us the business for the rest of today, tomorrow and next week.

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of science fiction coming from that side of the House.

Cattle producers are already looking ahead to restocking their farms for the future. These producers are waiting for the CFIA to give them written guidelines for that restocking.

Can the minister tell us when the CFIA will publish those guidelines to allow for the restocking of farms and to allow the people to get on with their lives?

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, cattle producers have had their farms quarantined. Their herds have been slaughtered, yet they cannot begin to rebuild their herds or their lives until the government drafts restocking guidelines.

When will the minister release the guidelines that will allow cattle producers to restock their cattle and rebuild their lives?

[Petitions, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions signed by constituents in my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.

The petitioners are asking that Parliament make sure that junior A hockey players are treated like Olympic athletes and that modest reasonable expenses and allowances are not treated as taxable income under the provisions of any applicable federal tax legislation.

There are many more people who have not signed this petition but who want their voices heard.

[Canadian Institutes of Health Research, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the CIHR has attempted to ignore Parliament. In March 2002 the institute wanted to fund embryonic research, even though legislation was pending. Opposition protests forced the institute to back down.

Is the minister going to allow the institute to continue on its own agenda?

[Canadian Institutes of Health Research, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has announced that it will soon begin funding embryonic stem cell research. This announcement comes even as legislation on the issue is before Parliament. It should be the Parliament of Canada that sets the rules for embryonic research.

Will the minister demand that the institute cease and desist until Parliament has spoken?