Carol Skelton

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals act.

Farmers and ranchers in Canada are facing hardships like we have not seen in recent years. The old timers in our area are saying that it is worse than the 1930s. The economy is bad, the weather conditions are bad and we are facing a severe drought.

The future of agriculture in Saskatchewan is uncertain. The stress and worry that our farm families are facing is hard to grasp. Over the last two weeks we have sent letters out to all the rural municipalities in my riding. By next Wednesday at least, the RMs in my whole riding will have been declared disaster RMs.

We look at farm families and what they have to live on. I heard last fall that the average income for a farm family in Saskatchewan was $7,000. I look at the bill as another impediment for those farm families to make a living and to succeed. The livestock industry in our province has been one success. The bill is just another nail in the coffin of profitable business.

Also of great concern to the province of Saskatchewan and right across Canada is the recent U.S. farm bill. The huge subsidies that the American government are offering American producers will have a definite negative effect on Canadian agriculture as a whole. Input costs continue to rise while income to farm families continues to fall. Faced with this crisis situation the Liberal government chooses to turn a blind eye to agriculture programs in Canada because it continues to inadequately fund them and inefficiently run them. These are programs that the government sponsors and says are so good for our farm families.

While the neglect shown by the government has been passive, the bill that is before us today is an open, aggressive attack on agriculture. This is not fearmongering, as the government would like Canadians to believe. It is a simple fact. The legislation before us would have a negative effect on farmers and ranchers throughout the country. When we talk to chicken farmers--

[Government Grants, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity in his Sunday shuffle to remove the ethically challenged solicitor general.

The solicitor general lobbied the RCMP after it rejected his brother's proposal. He also lobbied Correctional Service of Canada on behalf of his brother.

Will the solicitor general tell us if he lobbied CSIS and any other agency or branch of his department on behalf of his brother?

[Government Grants, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister's spin on the former finance minister, the solicitor general's problems are related to governing. The solicitor general is a serial lobbyist who continues to press his departments to fund projects spearheaded by his brother.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if his next Sunday shuffle will include his ethically challenged solicitor general?

[Government Grants, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, here is what sources said about the minister's plan to rip off taxpayers on behalf of his brother, and I quote:

There was no rationale or financial basis for it. It was just so blatant. They were there to bring back for P.E.I. whatever they could, whether it was good for taxpayers or not.

Will the Prime Minister send a message to his ministers and all Canadian people and fire the solicitor general?

[Government Grants, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general abused his power by pressuring the RCMP to show preferential treatment to his brother. At the same time he was pressuring Correctional Service Canada, in both cases after the grant applications had been turned down.

Will the Prime Minister explain why his government is tolerating this abuse of power?

[Agriculture, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the agriculture minister would like to give himself a pat on the back after seeing recent Statistics Canada reports on cash receipts for farmers. While the numbers appear positive for the year, the reality is that continued drought and low commodity prices will guarantee that incomes for Canadian producers will once again fall in 2002.

The incomes of Saskatchewan producers in 2002 will be half of what they were in 1978. Input costs continue to rise and incomes continue to fall.

While Canadian producers are struggling to survive, the government continues to talk about solutions. Agriculture in Canada has been hurting for years. It is time for the government to stop talking and start acting. Instead of rewarding its political friends, the government must focus on Canadians.

Agriculture is a national industry and must be a national concern. Canadian agriculture deserves the attention of the government.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today 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 the remainder of today, tomorrow and next week.

[Government of Canada, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during debate on an Alliance motion on government corruption this week the Prime Minister promised to bring an ethical package in for ministers. The House is still waiting.

The government has turned the House of Commons into Dr. Seuss' “waiting place” from Oh, The Places You'll Go! Dr. Seuss warns against a most useless place, the waiting place, for people just waiting.

I give the House Dr. Seuss' House of Commons for Liberals in waiting:

Waiting to reward a political hack, to fill the senate, or receive a kickback, Waiting for the summer to come, for people to forget, to hide under the sun, Waiting for a leadership race--or waiting around for another disgrace, Waiting to hire a minister's ex-squeeze, the stench might go away if we create a good breeze, Waiting for a cheque to cash, a priest to pray, or a bigger stash - everyone is just waiting.

Canadians have waited long enough, and as the auditor general said, they deserve better.

[Petitions, May 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House of Commons which was started in my riding of Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar on which there are names of people from right across Canada.

It states that the disability tax credit, having been taken away for no apparent reason from the numerous disabled persons, be reinstated without delay. It is a grave injustice to state that a disabled person is no longer deserving of the DTC. The removal of DTC creates monetary hardships for many of the disabled who face higher cost of living expenses than Canadians without disabilities. The petitioners request that parliament reinstate the DTC.

The original petition, which began in my riding, had over 3,600 names within a month. I salute the people for bringing it forward. I ask the House of Commons to look at this seriously.

[Disability Tax Credit, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last week to meet with members of various disability advocacy groups who voiced their concern over the government's treatment of the disabled in Canada.

I was presented with a petition containing over 3,600 names. This petition calls for the immediate reinstatement of those individuals who were deemed ineligible for the disability tax credit. A recent project undertaken by CCRA led to the exemption of thousands of Canadians. Over 100,000 disabled Canadians received letters telling them they were no longer deemed disabled. The tone and implications of these letters were both insulting and frustrating to the thousands of Canadians who rely on the disability tax credit.

The mandate of the CCRA states: “We are committed to provide fairness to our clients and to protect their rights through our fairness policies.” Disabled Canadians deserve a better government.