Carol Skelton

[Agriculture, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the Iron Curtain fell in Europe and democracy brought a brighter future. It celebrated the ability of people to decide how they wanted to conduct their own lives. They buy and sell their property and products in a free marketplace, a marketplace that ensures they get a fair market price.

In 1996 Canadians were charged for freely selling their farm products. Now they are going to jail charged, not by a Communist hold out, but by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why does the government defend the Canadian Wheat Board in its undemocratic actions instead of our prairie grain farmers?

[Petitions, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Saskatoon, Outlook, Rosetown, Dinsmore, Sovereign, Milden, Conquest and all other rural areas in the riding stating that the creation and the use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians. They call on the Government of Canada to act immediately to put forward swift punishment for the use of child pornography. I ask that Parliament act immediately.

[Agriculture, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of citizens of the Rosetown area have signed an important petition calling for government action for our Prairie farmers. They fear financial disaster for the grain and livestock industries. In turn, they fear economic ruin for our fragile rural economies.

These Canadians are not looking for handouts. They are looking for the government to level the playing field with foreign competition. They do not want to be subsidized like farmers in Europe and the United States. They want fewer foreign subsidies to allow them to compete fairly. Higher food costs and dependence on foreign food supplies is a dangerous direction for us to be heading.

The thousands who took the time to sign the petition are hoping our government will take the time to provide our farmers with a fair international trading environment before we loose our agriculture industries.

Our farmers are the best in the world, and in a fair trading environment they would not just survive, they would thrive.

[Look Good, Feel Better, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we should not judge a book by its cover. Unfortunately, many Canadians who suffer from cancer know all too well that people often judge them by their looks alone.

The Look Good, Feel Better program is now celebrating its 10th anniversary; 10 years of helping people improve their appearance and in turn, their confidence. It was an honour for me to volunteer in this program at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon which helps patients overcome these challenges. It was rewarding to see the smiles and laughs return to the faces of these courageous people.

As a person living with cancer, I know all too well how uplifting this program can be. It provides the positive focus we all need in the recovery process. Not only does it help the patients, but it also helps the families who desperately seek a sense of normalcy and reassurance during these tough times. These patients are proof that if they look good, they feel better.

Generous donations from the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association makes this program possible. On behalf of all cancer patients who have participated in this program, I wish to say thanks very much.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight, although it is not a pleasure to speak to the topic of the emergency debate. Agriculture in Canada is in a dire situation and the 15 second sound bite from the throne speech last Monday did not do much to reassure Canadians and Canadian farm families that the Liberal government opposite will be of any help to them.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Lakeland.

This is the second year my area in Saskatchewan has suffered a severe drought. Some areas have experienced from five to eight years of extensive drought. This year it took our livestock herds. Up until now we had been able to keep our livestock herds but this was the final year of that whole thing.

My office in Saskatoon took over 4,000 calls for hay when the Hay West campaign was born. People phoned, faxed, cried on the telephone, told terrible stories of hardship and pleaded for hay and help. I wish I could have had a tape of every one of those calls to give to the Minister of Agriculture and his committees so they could listen to the stories of hardship that families were feeling.

I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the people of eastern Canada who gave so much to western Canada. We heard tonight that it was just a pittance but those bales and those rail cars that came to western Canada gave our people hope. There was a message of sincere sympathy from eastern producers saying that we do care. I wish the Government of Canada cared as much for our producers as the people in eastern Canada did.

On July 27 I received a letter that was addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the minister of rural development in Canada. It reads, “Sir, I write this letter with much sadness and a very heavy heart. A short time ago a neighbour of mine committed suicide because of depression, a condition caused in large measure by frustration and hopelessness due to very poor grain, oilseed, specialty crop prices and declining livestock prices, drought and the added threat of a heavy grasshopper infestation. I spoke with him a few days before his death at which time he could see no way out of his situation because of huge input costs and a serious shortfall in income.

Last week we read in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix obituary column of a young farm lady who committed suicide also from depression.

The draught has been most severe. Last year, 2001, and this year too in this region, as it is in much of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Still, with all the information available to your government, no hint of any immediate relief assistance appears forthcoming. How many suicides will have to occur before there is a response in kind from the federal Government of Canada?

I find it very difficult to understand why a government would not have a disaster assistance plan in place that would take effect on short notice, especially when a situation such as drought is of such a magnitude as to affect most of Saskatchewan and Alberta. There always seems to be money for other segments of the economy but little or nothing for the most important human task of producing food for humankind.

At the July meeting of the Council of the Rural Municipality of Perdue the council declared the municipality a disaster area due to drought. In much of the municipality there will not be sufficient crop yield to cover municipal taxes, school unit taxes, fuel costs for operation, let alone other production costs. Hay yields are down 20% to 25% of 2001 yields, which was down significantly. Many livestock producers have reduced their herd by as much as 100% in some cases. Many though have reduced their herds by 50% to 60%.

In 1984, I, along with four others, sat in your office in Ottawa to discuss agricultural issues, but in particular the crow rate retention at that time. You indicated you understood our concerns in western Canada since you had relatives out there who were able to keep you informed.

I thank you for your attention in this matter of very great concern to myself and many others. We look forward to your early response”.

That is just one of the letters that I have on my desk.

The people of western Canada are very disappointed in the Liberal government and its lack of response to what has happened this year in western Canada.

The following is a letter from a young girl who, along with her husband, have just started farming. She writes, “My sister-in-law just phoned me to say that the news channel she was listening to said that we were to send our name and address in if we were in need of bales. In need of bales is the understatement as it ranks right up there with sure could use some rain. We are in desperate need of feed. We were hoping to bale some of the crop but it is too short, and what people are trying to bale for feed is coming out with extreme levels of nitrates. Our pastures for our buffalo are depleted and we cannot just go throw one wire around some crop land or there will be a rodeo unlike anything you have ever seen before. We actually brought some Hereford heifers too this spring, not the smartest move we have made but we were diversifying. Anyways, enough of the crying. If you have any resources we would appreciate your help”.

Dr. Alfred Ernst from Rosetown in my riding deals with the farm crisis in western Canada every day. He sees people in dire need. He sees children crying because their moms and dads are working two jobs to try to keep the family farm going. He visits with pensioners who are living on their pensions to keep their farm. All their savings have gone into the land and into the farm. Dr. Ernst collected a petition of over 4,000 names in less than a month's time from people who were asking for help.

I talked to a young woman in a store in one of the town's in my riding. She told me that yesterday was the worst day of 26 years in business. She and two of her staff were in the store and the only business they did that day was a gift return. We hear that over and over again.

A young woman with a business in the service industry said that it was the first time that her husband who is a farmer had to go to work. She works at her own business and with the farm they had been able to manage but that now her husband had to find a job to put food on the table.

Agri business across western Canada is suffering. We can no longer afford to not support our agriculture communities. We cannot allow western Canada to become a large, barren land. We cannot afford to lose the family farm. The way the Liberal government is going there is no other way of looking at it.

I received a pamphlet the other day in the mail from an agri business. A lot of our farmers have gone into the SFIP, NISA and other programs but they have phoned and told me they would not go into SFIP this year. I spoke to an accountant who has talked to over 30 of his clients. These people have had money clawed back because the government made mistakes when it sent out their cheques. The lowest amount was about $700. The government is telling farmers with no income that they have to pay back $30,000. There is not $30,000 to be paid back. The government made the mistake but it is telling farmers to give the money back. It says that it is not its problem.

The Liberal government is accountable for every farm and every farm family under the gun this fall. The Liberal government has not stood up for the Canadian family farm, and it is about time that it did.

[Points of Order, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for a ruling regarding the announcement of the entire legislative agenda by the government House leader outside the House at the National Press Club yesterday morning.

I raise this matter in the following context. The report of the modernization committee recommended on page 4:

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first--or, at least, concurrently--in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

This report was adopted by the House. One of its authors is the government House leader who signed off on the report and moved the motion to have it adopted.

My first question to the Chair is, would this not be considered a matter of misleading the House, to say in an official report and to Parliament that something will be done and then turn around and do something else?

I also want the House to consider this in the context of the leak of Bill C-15 and Bill C-36 in the previous session. When the context of the bill was leaked, the Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege. Obviously leaking information about government legislation that is intended for the House is a serious matter. The Speaker ruled on this matter and said:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before Parliament, the House must take precedence.... To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

This is what the government House leader had to say during the debate on the question of privilege:

I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution.

I will repeat that line, “given the respect that I have for this institution”. He continued:

Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book.

I believe the House leader for the Conservatives referred to this as privileged information. Actually it is more than that. It is secret, secret in the very sense of government secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, if leaking information on one bill is an offence to the House, surely leaking the entire agenda to the press club is offensive to the House.

To give an idea of the impact that this had on me personally, I refer to yesterday's CBC Newsworld interview by Don Newman. He was interviewing all the House leaders and in his lead-in comments mentioned that he was going to talk to us about the legislative agenda and then mentioned that this agenda was announced at the press club yesterday morning.

I had no idea of the contents of that announcement. Don Newman knew more than I did and probably more than any other House leader on the panel, except maybe the government House leader. I did not expect to hunt down this information because such an announcement, at a minimum, should have been given to the House leaders at the House leaders' weekly meeting, or perhaps in the House during the Thursday question or by a statement by minister.

The government House leader put members, and particularly the House leaders, at a disadvantage and gave a huge advantage to the media.

How can this be defined as respect for this institution as the minister said in the House?

I also want to mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a major announcement yesterday outside the House regarding parks. Also, today before question period our solicitor general made a statement to the media regarding questions put to him yesterday in the House. Therefore, they knew before we did.

Is it some sort of a government strategy to fan out all over the country and misrepresent the role of Parliament? The government's dismissive view of the House and its members is contemptuous.

[Points of Order, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the work you did. Seeing that we have a new proposal on the table, does it not require 48 hours on the table so we can draft our amendments to the motion?

[Business of the House, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for this afternoon, tomorrow and the following week?

[Points of Order, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a motion on the Order Paper, Motion No. 2, in the name of the Minister of State and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The motion contains four separate and distinct parts, each capable of standing on its own. I raise the matter because these four unrelated parts make it impossible for members to debate and cast their votes responsibly and intelligently.

The four separate parts deal with: first, reinstating evidence from the last session with regard to committee work; second, establishing and reinstating procedure for government bills; third, establishing a special committee on the non-medical use of drugs; and fourth, authorizing the Standing Committee on Finance to travel in relation to its pre-budget consultations.

In the throne speech the government announced that Bill C-5, species at risk, would be reinstated. My party is against the reinstatement of Bill C-5. Therefore I must oppose the motion.

However, there is another part of that motion that establishes the special committee on non-medical use of drugs. The committee is a result of a Canadian Alliance opposition motion that passed unanimously in the House in the first session, a motion sponsored by the member for Langley—Abbotsford. We are obviously not against that part of the motion. It is an important issue and I understand that the committee is ready to report when reconstituted. There is great interest in its findings.

Another part of the motion allows for the finance committee to travel for pre-budget consultations. Some members may be for this part or against it. Perhaps there may be a temptation for a member to include it in instructions to the committee or offer, through amendment, more details about its travels.

The motion also includes a separate section regarding the evidence of committees in the first session. Since every committee can decide that for themselves I am not sure why it is necessary to have this put to the House but perhaps we can listen to debate and discover the rationale for its inclusion.

On page 478 of Marleau and Montpetit it states:

When a complicated motion comes before the House. . .the Speaker has the authority to modify it and thereby facilitate decision-making for the House. When any Member objects to a motion that contains two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately.

At pages 427 to 431 of the Journals of 1964 there is a Speaker's ruling regarding the authority of the Chair to divide a motion. At page 431 the Speaker, after a lengthy historical report on the issue of dividing motions, concluded:

I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them--

In examining the nature of the two propositions from 1964 I have concluded that Motion No. 2 should be divided into four separate motions.

Another ruling you may want to consider, Mr. Speaker, is from April 10, 1991. The opposition objected to a government motion because it contained 64 separate proposals. The Speaker confirmed, at page 19312 of Hansard from April 10, 1991, that “the Speaker has the authority to divide complicated questions”.

We argue that Motion No. 2 be divided into four separate motions because the motion does four different things with two decisions associated with yea or nay. For example, a member may agree with one and be against two, three and four, or agree with one and two and disagree with three and four, or agree with two and be against one, three and four, et cetera.

The potential number of outcomes is 16. We would need to allow 16 different amendments to deal with various deletion combinations to solve the problem. Further, the issue of amending the different parts of the motion to make it more suitable or to offer an alternative adds to the dilemma. The number of amendments necessary to solve the problem is astronomical. It is clear that Motion No. 2 in its present form is out of order and unacceptable.

The items contained in it require separate votes, separate amendments and separate debate to solicit support for those amendments to convince members to vote for or against. Of course, the government forgets that Parliament is about debate.

It might help the Chair and the public watching to get an understanding as to why this motion is before the House and why it is before the House in this unusual form.

The government is once again attempting to manipulate the rules of Parliament to abuse the rights of all members because of its deep divisions in the Liberal Party. It is clear that this manoeuvre would avoid potential prime ministerial embarrassment of having Liberal backbenchers voting against the reinstatement of Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B by lumping into one package the important issue of non-medical use of drugs and prebudget consultation with Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. The Prime Minister is gambling that Liberal backbenchers will hold their noses and vote for the whole package rather than see the work of the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs be for naught and scuttle prebudget consultations.

If this motion is allowed to stand as is, members will be forced to vote for the reinstatement of Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B to ensure prebudget consultations and to save the good work of the special committee. This motion is wrong procedurally and is wrong ethically.

The original motion proposed to House leaders had in it a part that replaced the lost supply day. The supply day was lost because the government decided to prorogue which extended the summer break by two weeks. It was not the opposition decision so it made sense to give that supply day back.

Perhaps we could separate the reinstatement part from the rest of the items, put back the part about the additional supply day and then we could avoid debating all four motions separately. That would be the sensible thing.

[Hay West Campaign, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the second year in a row farm families on the Prairies have watched their crops and pastures wither and the dust fly as drought continues to grip most of Canada's grainbelt.

When a group of our farming neighbours in the eastern provinces heard about the drought conditions on the Prairies, they decided to do what they could to help and the Hay West campaign was born. There are many people who deserve thanks for their donations to this campaign, but the organizers of the Hay West initiative deserve special recognition.

I have had the pleasure of meeting two of the people behind the Hay West campaign, Willard McWilliams and Cumberland Councillor Phil McNeely, who have given hours of their own time and resources to coordinate the donations of thousands of tonnes of hay to western farmers. They have taken on a huge job out of their own goodwill and through the kindness of their hearts.

On behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, and indeed all the recipients of the much needed hay, I want to congratulate the people who have led the Hay West campaign and extend a huge heartfelt thanks.