Carol Skelton

[Curling, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has two more world champion teams. Our men's and women's teams captured the world junior curling titles in Switzerland with the cheers of all Canadians behind them.

The men's team, skipped by Steve Laycock, with Chris Haichert, Michael Jantzen, Kyler Broad and Ben Hebert, was strong throughout the tournament. The women's team set a new standard by going undefeated in 11 straight games. This made it only the fourth time that both the Canadian men and women have won the world's in the same year.

The women's team was skipped by Marliese Miller, third Teejay Surik, second Janelle Lemon, lead Chelsey Bell and alternate Tammy Schneider.

Teejay Surik is the second world curling champion to come from Biggar, continuing the legacy of the great Sandra Schmirler.

I would like to thank both teams for doing Canada proud by being such wonderful ambassadors and such great champions.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, March 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time this afternoon with my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I am pleased to contribute to the important debate on the national sex offender registry. There cannot be more than a handful of people who would be opposed to such a registry in Canada, but I know there are millions of Canadians who do not know how ineffective the registry will be as it is proposed.

Sex offences are unlike any other crime. They are attacks on the person, not on a person's property. They violate the person in unimaginable ways. These crimes change their victims for life and the victims' families and communities. They violate the most basic level of trust we have between ourselves and our neighbours.

Canadians have demanded that their government take these crimes more seriously than others. They have demanded that we protect them from rapists and pedophiles, especially when we know who the criminals are. They have demanded that we put partisan politics aside for the safety and security of their families and themselves.

I was optimistic at first when the Canadian Alliance proposed the registry and the Liberals agreed to implement one. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

If an average Canadian were to put together a registry, one would expect that all known sex offenders would be included. Their whereabouts would be updated regularly and the list would be comprehensive. Unfortunately, the list will not contain the name of one known sex offender when it begins. Their whereabouts are updated annually and there are a number of loopholes that will allow rapists and pedophiles to remain off the registry.

Do registries work? I believe they do when there is full support and compliance with them. Other registries prove ineffective because they are not enforceable, are unreasonable or serve no purpose.

Let us take a look at the handgun registry. This registry, requiring all handguns in Canada to be registered, has been in place since 1932. In 71 years it has not proven effective in preventing a single crime. Even worse is the fact that handguns remain a serious problem across Canada.

What did the Liberals do in response? They said that guns should be registered. Canadians rightfully questioned the initiative because of the proven ineffectiveness of the handgun registry. If a purpose cannot be shown for a registry and if it cannot be made comprehensive, people will not adhere to it.

If we look at other registries, they have proven more effective because they are enforceable and people see a purpose in registering. The registration of cars, telecommunications devices and fishing permits come to mind.

What can Canadians expect the first day the sex offender registry is in place? What will be better than the day before? Unfortunately, the answer is nothing. The registry will not be grandfathered, meaning that known sex offenders will not be included. Only those who are convicted after the registry is in place will be included. It is unbelievable that the Paul Bernardos and Karla Homolkas of the world will not be placed on the list. If we can grandfather the firearms registry, why can we not grandfather the sex offender registry?

Who are the real criminals? Why are the Liberals trying to protect rapists and pedophiles? Every living person who has been convicted of a sex crime should be included on the registry for life. I am looking forward to hearing the Liberal reasoning why they should not be. The intention of the registry is to keep track of those deemed to be a potential threat to the public. That way if there is a sex crime committed, police have a headstart in tracking down potential suspects.

To be effective, the registry must accurately know the whereabouts of those individuals. While we are not suggesting they each call in by the hour to let us know where they are, I feel an annual update is too infrequent to be effective or reliable. If we called our families once a year to update our addresses, how much would that reveal about our whereabouts for the other 364 days of the year?

Most provinces have strict rules about updating one's driver's licence and address within days of moving. Why should the requirements of convicted sex offenders be any less stringent? I think a lot more could be done to keep track of these individuals. If they leave a prescribed region, they should have to report. If they want to leave the country, they should have to report and get permission.

If anyone has a problem with the rules, they simply should remember that they chose to put themselves on the list by committing a serious crime.

Many may wonder what the serious penalty must be for not keeping one's listing updated or reporting every 365 days. It is punishable by a maximum, yes as maximum, of six months in prison. The penalties for not registering a firearm, a car, a first fishing permit and a number of other things are much worse. Once again we have to ask, what message are we sending?

Shockingly, not all of the convicted sex offenders would be required to remain registered for life. Sex offenders would be required to remain registered for one of three periods: 10 years for summary conviction offences with two to five year maximums; 20 years for offences with 10 to 14 year maximums; and lifetime for offences with a maximum life sentence or where there has been a prior conviction for a sex offence.

But wait, it gets even more interesting. These registration periods are not ironclad orders. These criminals can get off the list, or even avoid getting on it in the first place, if they can successfully argue that being on the list will do them more harm than public good.

We could imagine the lineup of sex offenders who will try to get off the list through this loophole. I can imagine that our traditionally soft judicial system would be more than happy to comply with the wishes of rapists and pedophiles.

With such soft requirements and such large loopholes, is the registry going to do anything? Will it be worth the effort? Unfortunately I think that the registry in its proposed form will be ineffective. It will be a great Liberal public relations exercise but will do nothing to protect the public. It will do little to track sex offenders and will tie up the courts with pedophiles and rapists trying to get off the list. It will frustrate police and give the public a false sense of security. It will end up being another Liberal boondoggle.

This is very unfortunate because we are wasting an opportunity to really make a difference, an opportunity to make necessary changes to protect Canadians, especially our children.

If we would put half as much effort and resources into the sex offender registry as were put into the firearms registry, we would be much further ahead. Why is the government not putting as much effort into registering known criminals as it is in registering law-abiding citizens?

I have trouble telling my constituents that the registry will start with a blank page and may or may not have the names of known sex offenders. I also have a problem telling them that a rapist or pedophile is roaming in their community and is only required to report once a year. But I will tell my constituents that the Liberals did not seize the opportunity and the chance they had to protect them, that the Liberals tried to pull the wool over their eyes, that the Liberals misled them into a false sense of security. I will be honest with my constituents even if the Liberals are not honest with theirs.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be counted as opposing this motion.

[Iraq, March 21st, 2003]

Where is your backbone?

[Canada Student Loans Program, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I take with great interest what my colleague has just said to me and I am quite sure that we will hear more from the breeders involved in this whole situation.

I would like to ask him then, if he has this great concern about our cervids, why will Health Canada give a food certification health certificate to elk velvet that is being used for export to Asian countries? If Health Canada is giving a clear health status for the velvet, why is the federal government placing restrictions and allowing the Korean borders to be closed to Canadian breeders? If Health Canada is positive that--

[Canada Student Loans Program, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to add to an issue I originally raised during question period regarding chronic wasting disease, or CWD, in cervids.

CWD has devastated the cervid industry in Canada and our cervid farmers are not getting answers to their questions from the government.

Unfortunately, most of the public concern is not based on fact, but is based on hysteria that misinformation and a lack of information breeds.

At no time has CWD threatened the human population and cervids remain safe to eat. Nonetheless the government has quarantined four farms and they are still under quarantine. It needs to answer some fundamental questions in order to put the uncertainty of farmers and consumers at rest. These questions are best summarized as:

One, how is it possible that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency can keep these farms in quarantine indefinitely when there is no way to scientifically prove there is any disease on these farms?

Two, these farms have been in quarantine for over two years. Does the department have any plans to get these farms out of quarantine?

Three, can a sentinel program be funded to learn about CWD in an effort to put these farms back in business?

Four, two of the quarantined farms, on the directions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, spent large amounts of money to clean up their farms and then were told that although they had met the required specifications, they still could not use their land. Can these farms be compensated for their fruitless efforts considering the fact that the CFIA representative stated they could restock their land with bison or cattle immediately after doing the cleanup?

CWD does not represent the first time that an animal disease has threatened one of Canada's agricultural industries. In 1998 in Quebec, sheep were infected or threatened with scrapies disease. Like CWD, this does not pose a threat to human consumption. The federal government was quick to come to the aid of the Quebec farmers in this instance. Quebec sheep farmers were offered compensation that allowed farmers to minimize their losses at a respectable level.

Cervid farmers are not being offered the same deal. They are being cruelly offered the market cost of their animals. This market cost represents a mere fraction of the investment that was made and in turn represents a fraction of the loss that is being incurred.

Cervid farmers deserve to receive compensation at the same level as were Quebec's sheep farmers. Any less than that would be discrimination. It would signal that farmers are not treated equally across Canada by the federal government.

I hope the minister will rise today and tell cervid farmers that compensation will be on par with that of Quebec's sheep farmers. I hope he can tell quarantined cervid farmers when they will be able to freely use their land to generate the income they need to feed their families.

I hope he will tell Canadians that cervid meat is safe for human consumption. I hope the minister will right this wrong before he destroys an entire industry.

[Business of the House, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to ask the hon. government House leader what business we will have for the rest of today, tomorrow and the week after the break.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to this important debate on Bill C-13. The bill is attempting to address the vast and complex issues surrounding assisted reproduction. I was one of the few members of Parliament who reviewed the legislation and listened to a range of witnesses. The witnesses represented a broad spectrum of concerns and came from all parts of Canada. I think it was important that we took the time to hear people's opinions on this proposed piece of legislation because of its direct effect on the lives of all Canadians.

Of course none of us would be here without reproduction. Many things have changed over time, and it was time that our laws attempted to address the myriad of issues. As we consider the use of more and more assisted reproduction techniques and methods, we face a number of ethical, moral and religious considerations. As I said before, it was important to hear from all these stakeholders. I think the committee did a good job of doing this, considering the timeframe and competing priorities.

Just to give the House an idea of the level of importance we place on the legislation, it should be noted that we did not have hearings into the Romanow report or the Kirby report because the Liberal members thought this bill was more important.

The members of Parliament for Yellowhead and Mississauga South have worked extremely hard to have a number of their concerns addressed. I would like to speak to a number of their amendments in a general way because I feel they all touch on a common set of concerns and themes.

Let us take Motion No. 92, for example, which calls for transparency and accountability. It also calls for public consultation on draft agreements and for the text of such agreements to be made public. I cannot blame my colleague from Mississauga South for wanting to bring transparency and accountability to the process, especially after witnessing the Liberal record.

When we look at the issue of the registry that would be required to track and monitor things such as semen donations, we can only think of the fiasco we have seen with the firearms registry. The government is wasting more than $1 billion by attempting to register law-abiding Canadians instead of focusing on criminals. I could definitely argue the merits, if there are any, of the firearms registry, but I will focus on the paper side of it for the purposes of the bill. The RCMP has said that almost all records in the firearms registry are incorrect or incomplete and cannot be considered reliable. What would happen if this were the case in a semen donation registry? Are we able to avoid repeating our mistakes?

I think a registry for semen donations is important for a number of reasons. As I highlighted last fall during question period, semen is a recognized carrier of the HIV virus. For public health reasons, we need to be able to trace a donation from beginning to end. We need to be able to assure donation recipients that all donations are screened and safe. As a former coordinator for Canadian Blood Services, I know how important it is to track donations from beginning to end, how important it is to be able to tell donation recipients just what they are putting into their bodies and that it is safe.

In the case of assisted human reproduction, we need to know who provided that donation. Those children who are the product of such techniques have a right to know who gave them life. We have to allow those children to know where their DNA, their foundation, was built. Now we may require further legislation to properly address those related concerns and obligations, but critical to all of this is an accurate registry. This is why we need transparency and accountability in the process.

Hiding government business in arm's length agencies to avoid the access to information legislation does not do this. The Canadian Blood Services, the agency created after a deadly national blood scandal, is not subject to ATI provisions. This makes it less accountable and less transparent in the eyes of most Canadians. While I am confident it does the best job it can, I also would like to see it being more open and accountable for its actions.

Openness is an important part of any democratic system. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Mississauga South is also asking for more public consultation and disclosure with his motions on the bill. Public consultation is a delicate issue for every level of government. Some argue that we are elected by the public to act on their behalf and that this is enough consultation for them. In fact, they often argue that public consultation is merely an abdication of responsibility, a way for elected people to achieve their goals without actually doing it themselves. They also state that public consultations provide a false sense of hope and only serve to delay the inevitable.

Others argue that electing a government representative does not mean that opinion should be sought only once every four years. They argue that a democratic system requires a consistent dialogue between voters and the person they elect. They reasonably argue that success on election day should not be interpreted as a blank cheque for four years.

Personally I like the idea of public consultations, with one big condition. Public consultation should be held only if there is an honest and genuine willingness to alter the proposal. Nothing disturbs me more than witnessing the sham of public consultations.

We see the Liberals take their budget road show across Canada ahead of the budget, but somehow what we hear from Canadians never seems to show up in the budget. Unfortunately, I have often witnessed this in parliamentary committees too. We parade a number of witnesses through the process and we debate the issues among ourselves. Then we send it to the clerk for final revision and what comes back in the final report is something none of us saw in the first place. If people are not willing to accept the input of others, they should not pretend that they are. When we are dealing with the legal, moral, ethical and religious components of assisted human reproduction, we have an obligation to seek public input, guidance and opinion.

I would like to take the remainder of my speech to discuss an issue I briefly touched upon before. This is the issue of donor identity. Many couples have trouble conceiving their own children. There are a number of reasons why, but they are not the issue here. The issue is the way they get around the obstacle. Whether it is by semen or egg donations or through a surrogate parent, a growing number of children enter the world as products of such methods.

Many couples, even those who can create their own children, decide to adopt children, and I could tell many stories of wonderful adoptive families that I know. I admire their courage and their ability to share their love with others. Nonetheless, all these children share something in common. They were given life by someone other than the people raising them.

Before I continue, I want to stress that I am not for a minute suggesting that these children are in any way incomplete or different because they may not know who their biological parents are. I just think they have the right to know who their parents are if they wish to.

The anonymity of semen or egg donations may encourage people to step forward more readily than if they had to disclose their identity, but is that necessarily good? We are finding that more and more medical problems are genetic. Knowing who one's biological parents were would be essential in fully understanding one's medical history. Most important, and this is the main reason I would like donors identified, is the issue of medical solutions. We know that when it comes to life saving bone marrow transplants it is difficult to find a match. We also know that a match most often comes from one's immediate family. Thus, knowing the donor parents would facilitate these potential life saving medical procedures. I therefore support the proper tracking and identification of donors to allow these children access to important medical information.

In closing, I would like to say that I support all initiatives that are being taken to make this bill more open, accountable and transparent. I also support the greater inclusion of public input on issues such as this and applaud my colleagues for bringing forth such matters.

[The Environment, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, western Canadians are at a loss to explain the environment minister's decision to close critical weather stations. The minister wants to close pivotal weather stations putting all our citizens and our agricultural industry at risk.

Why is he now asking Agriculture Canada to fund these critical weather stations and not his own department?

[Business of the House, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there were supposed to be two Liberal speakers this morning.