Lynne Yelich

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. Our province usually cuts programs. As I said, hospitals and schools are closed, all the things that are very important and close to the citizens. This is how governments usually fund programs.

I do not see how this is possible or affordable, watching the circumstance in Quebec right now. It will be very interesting to find out how it will handle its program right now. Child care workers will possibly go on strike because of pay equity differences, so then there are even more phenomenal and unseen costs. I am sure the government has not factored in any of the labour issues yet.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the best way to help the member understand this is to compare it with our school systems. We have such a variation of types of schools. We have home schooling, Catholic schools, public schools, Christian schools, hockey schools, et cetera. Some have uniforms and some do not. They try to apply universality of good quality education and accessibility. The provinces do try to fund them, they find out they cannot. Therefore, they close the rural schools and try to fund the schools in the bigger centres. Then we have the rural kids having to be bused to the schools.

I am curious as to how it would work with universal child care. I can see the way our school system is being handled by our provincial counterparts. They do a very poor job.

The universal health care system is supposed to be accessible and universal, and I do not see that working very well either. I do not know how the government will do with a national child care program.

[Supply, June 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy Royal.

The Prime Minister recently suggested that the new national child care program will help to define us as Canadians. As a result, should we not take great care to ensure that the program reflects the values of Canadians, that it actually works for Canadians?

Unfortunately, the national child care program being proposed by the federal government is deeply flawed. We all understand the reality facing hard working Canadian families today. Unlike previous generations who had the option of having one parent stay home with a child, the majority of families either by necessity or choice have both parents working full time. As a result, these families face child care challenges that were not an issue for those previous generations.

How the state will respond to this new reality has been an issue of considerable debate. However, one aspect that should not be up for debate is the issue of choice. We must ensure that parents have choices and options in determining the best child care for their child.

I am happy to state that the Conservative Party supports freedom of choice for parents on child care. Our party realizes that parents, not the federal government, are in the best position to decide how to care for and educate their children.

Regrettably, that is not the position of the federal government. The Liberal plan for child care is a one size fits all bureaucratic model with little to no knowledge of the different needs of working families across this vast country. There is no acknowledgement of the needs of rural communities, shift workers or stay at home parents.

Will working families living in rural communities, like the towns in my constituency of Blackstrap, Outlook or Viscount, have the same access to the national child care program as those in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. We know the answer to that.

The Liberal Party's vision for child care is designed primarily for urban centres and will generally exclude families living in rural Canada where no day care facilities exist even though their hard earned tax dollars will fund the program.

How will shift workers benefit from a national child care program? The Liberal plan is centred on outdated notions of a 9 to 5 work day, increasingly at odds with the realities of the modern workplace. Political commentator Paula Simons stated that if we work evenings, weekends or early mornings, if we work long hours or odd shifts, day care is not a viable option. She said that in our 24/7 corporate culture, where at least 30% of Canadians do shift work, that means day care, no matter how cheap we make it, no matter how many spaces we create, can never be a universal solution.

How will the Liberal child care program help these Canadians? We know the answer to that too. It will not. What about a family where one parent has decided to stay at home with the child? What message is the federal government sending to these families when it says that it is going to spend public money to support child care in Canada, but the parents of that child will not qualify because they chose to stay at home? They made the wrong choice.

It is demeaning and insulting to the 47% of families with children between six months and five years who have at least one stay at home parent according to a Statistics Canada study.

In fact, I asked some of the more zealous advocates of a national child care program to be a little more sensitive when speaking about the deeply personal choices stay at home parents have made. For instance, the member for Beaches—East York, speaking in the House on a prior occasion, suggested that stay at home parents were merely capable of providing lesser child minding and not true child care for their children.

For those families who have sacrificed a few of life's luxuries and indeed even necessities to spend time with their own child in those precious early years, it is a little deeper than simple child minding.

I am not sure how someone cannot see why a mother of her first child would think that her child would be better served bonding with her than spending time with a child psychologist or a child development worker. I understand and indeed most Canadians also do too. According to the Vanier Institute family study, 9 out of 10 Canadians feel that in a two parent situation, ideally one parent should stay home to raise the children.

Yet, stay at home parents, along with those in rural Canada and shift workers, who will not have access to the Liberal day care plan by choice, opportunity or necessity, will subsidize this program. What is the government member's response to this? A shrug of the shoulders. According to the Minister of Social Development, this is all to be expected because we really do not know and in fact, we do not need to know because the future is going to be decided.

Canada's national child care system which, according to the Prime Minister, will define this country will never truly meet the needs of all Canadians as presently constructed. That much we do know.

Another troubling aspect of the Liberal approach is the manner in which the federal government has reacted to provinces that have a different concept of child care. Some provinces have suggested that they do not want to focus exclusively on institutional child care.

For instance, when New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord suggested that his province may utilize portions of the federal child care funding to provide enough support to make a difference to stay at home parents to provide for their children, the Minister of Social Development threatened that New Brunswick would never see any child care funding unless these alleged hardline demands were abandoned. He said that if that is an area of priority for that province, then that is an area it can act on in its own way.

Maybe the Minister of Social Development should discuss his concept of federalism with the Minister of Transport. When the member for Outremont followed the announcement of a newly improved parental leave program for his home province, allowing Quebec to run the program in a manner which it deemed best for its citizens, he said that it showed that we can be flexible and that there was no need to have a wall to wall solution.

Why is the national child care program any different? Why does the concept of federalism, as stated clearly by the minister's colleague, not extend to child care options for provinces like New Brunswick? Why does he not want a wall to wall solution imposed on the provinces? I strongly urge the Minister of Social Development to heed the advice of the member for Outremont and be more flexible in recognizing the fact that each province is unique and faces different challenges in assisting the child care needs of working families.

According to a Statistics Canada report, the percentage of Canadian children cared for nationally in day care centres is 25%, while 34% are cared for by a non-relative, like a babysitter or a nanny. However, those numbers are dramatically different in my home province of Saskatchewan, where 54% of children are cared for by a non-relative and only 10% are cared for in day care centres. To simply impose upon Saskatchewan, or any province, a program that is not flexible and adaptable to its own special circumstances will not result in the intended consequences.

Different provinces have different child care needs. Different Canadians have different child care needs. There is no one size fits all wall to wall solution. Consequently, when we discuss child care, we need to broaden our scope beyond the realm of institutionalized child care and seek approaches to give working families more choices, not fewer.

That is why I believe the Conservative Party's proposal is the right direction. It puts freedom in the hands of working families with direct cash subsidies and allows them the choice of formal child care, day homes, relatives, nannies or stay at home parenting.

Depending on what they believe is the right choice for their particular circumstance, there is nothing more personal than the choice families make about the care of their child. Should we not ensure that the choices available are not restricted for Canadian families?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as many know, this year Saskatchewan and Alberta are celebrating their centennial as provinces. There have been and continue to be numerous events to mark this occasion. It is a time when residents of these two provinces take time to pause and reflect on the past 100 years of struggle, survival and prosperity.

At the dawn of the 20th century a great multitude of immigrants flooded into western Canada in a period which was later dubbed the Laurier boom. Outposts which once stood sparsely populated were transformed into bustling, vibrant cities. My home city of Saskatoon saw its population swell from barely over 100 in 1901 to an astonishing 12,000 a mere decade later.

We look at those early settlers who abandoned all they had known and ventured into the great unknown with a dream of a better life, those first players in the extraordinary epic of hope that is the story of these two great provinces, and we salute them. Who were these pioneers? Who were these women and men who pushed endurance and stubbornness past all limits of reason to build the cities, towns and villages of Saskatchewan and Alberta? What are their stories?

Regrettably, until a few years ago those questions could not be fully answered because of the federal government's steadfast refusal to release the 1906 special western census. In June 1906 then Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, sensing the phenomenal growth of western Canada was bringing with it a new, distinctive society, took the unprecedented step of commissioning a special census exclusively of the population and agriculture of the western provinces.

For many years access to this information was restricted from the general public. The government argued that the 1906 census was completed under the assumption that information given would remain confidential in perpetuity, and that this commitment should be honoured. Many responded to this line of reasoning by asking a simple question: Would we not be breaking an even greater commitment if we did not let the complete stories of those early settlers be told?

Most reasonable people, taking into account the decades that have passed and the immense historical significance of the information within it, were inclined to support the release of the 1906 census data. A few years ago the federal government relented and permitted the release of the 1906 special western Canada census.

People like Bill Waiser, a history professor at the University of Saskatchewan and a board member of Canada's National History Society, have used this information to discover more about the histories of the families that settled and built our province. Mr. Waiser remarked shortly following the release that it was “a wonderful bonanza. I can go look at the 1906 special western census and highlight a few individuals from different parts of the province and make them part of our story”.

That brings us to the issue we are here today to debate, Bill S-18, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

This legislation centres around those very same issues that surrounded the debate on the release of the 1906 western Canada census. Bill S-18 will permit unrestricted access to personal census records after 92 years for each of the censuses between 1911 and 2001, and as a result, authorize the immediate release of the 1911 census records.

Moreover, Bill S-18 will mandate the inclusion of a confidentiality clause in all future censuses. This will require all Canadians to be asked directly if they consent to the public release of their personal records after 92 years. If they do not expressly consent to the release, the information will remain confidential. Furthermore, should a citizen change his or her mind on the issue, the option of applying to Statistics Canada to change his or her status will be made available.

This might appear on the surface to be a very straightforward issue, and indeed portions like those dealing with the inclusion of a confidentiality clause are. But other portions, like those dealing with the release of earlier census data, have brought forward a clash between competing values comparable to the debate surrounding the release of the 1906 census data.

On one hand we have those who argue that releasing such information would violate the privacy rights of those who completed the survey. This line of reasoning suggests the principle of confidentiality, implicit or explicit as it was during the time of the census survey, trumps all other considerations.

Underlining this viewpoint is a genuine concern for the privacy of those affected Canadians who submitted to giving personal information in a census because it was a government sanctioned survey which they believed would never be released to the general public. In other words, it was a promise of perpetual confidentiality. Indeed, even today the vast majority of participants in a census would likely consider their information to be protected and would strenuously object to their responses being released without their clear consent.

Moreover, with regard to many of the past censuses, such as that of 1911, it is not possible to contact the participants and seek their approval for the release of information at present or at a later date. Accordingly, proponents of this argument recommend we pursue a course of action that protects the confidentiality of the respondents and restrict access to the census data.

On the other hand, we have those who submit that releasing this information is necessary to our country. Much like the successful argument for the release of the 1906 census data, they argue that this information should be available to the public in order for Canadians to construct a better picture of their collective past. For aside from simply showing information on selected individual Canadians, it is argued that censuses in their entirety reveal the social history of our country.

Canada's genealogists, historians, archivists and family historians have repeatedly urged this House to take action and allow greater access to census records. The lack of access to these records has especially frustrated the efforts of numerous Canadian families trying to piece together their own personal family histories.

Without access to the invaluable information provided by census records, many Canadians may be robbed of ever discovering the complete stories of their ancestry, depriving not only themselves, but also future generations of family information.

Mr. Speaker, I failed to tell you that I am sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

This line of reasoning also suggests that privacy concerns of respondents are lessened with the passage of time. This assertion is supported by the conclusions of an expert panel convened by the federal government in the early 1990s.

The panel concluded that the perspective that the release of historical census information, even after 92 years, violates the fundamental principles of personal privacy is at odds with the view that the passage of time or death of an individual diminishes the privacy rights of that person, a view that is also enshrined in the Privacy Act.The commitment to confidentiality of census data was not intended to last indefinitely. The panel's view is that the passage of 92 years is sufficient time to allay concerns regarding individual privacy.

Bill S-18 attempts to find a balance between these two lines of reasoning and seeks a compromise between these conflicting interests. While it would release data from previous censuses to the public, it would ensure that Canadians had the opportunity to control the release of their personal information in the future.

Canada will join other jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom in providing access to historical census records in a manner that is respectful of the privacy rights of its citizens. Consequently, I am inclined to support this legislation and have it go to committee for some serious review of privacy concerns.

I note that this legislation and the compromise it seeks is not only supported by Canada's chief statistician, Ivan Fellegi, but also by the Canada Census Committee, the Canadian Historical Association and the Association of Canadian Archivists.

Considering the 2006 census is quickly approaching, I would urge that this legislation be passed in order to allow Statistics Canada sufficient time to communicate to Canadians of their confidentiality options under which the next census will be taken.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to hear what the hon. member has to say about mental illness in our youth. The statistics are staggering. It is estimated that 10% to 20% of Canadian youth are affected by mental illness. In Canada, only one out of five who need mental health services receives them.

I think of the parents of schizophrenic children who have come to us for help. Being the greatest disabler, it strikes more often in the 16 to 30 year old age group and they have nowhere to go. A national strategy should certainly be in place. Mental illness has been ignored not only in our province but across Canada. Where in Michael Wilson's work is this going to be addressed?

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing his story because that is exactly what my speech was about. At this time someone is probably receiving the news that he or she may have cancer and at this time someone is dying of cancer. More and more cancer is being diagnosed, and yes, there are more successful treatments, but there have been increases in many different types of cancer and diagnoses.

On the fiscal imbalance, I am not thinking of this as something solely for the provinces but something that is national so we can share information. Cancer has no boundaries so we cannot have each province creating its own databases and research without sharing it. We need everyone to work together on a national strategy so that then each province can perhaps deliver the services.

We are not just talking about delivery. We are also talking about research, science and the diseases that have no boundaries. As a country, we need to be a leader, as other countries have been, in creating a national strategy. I do not think each province can handle the magnitude of what that would entail.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Hastings.

“You have cancer”. Those are three simple words in the English language that no one wants to hear. Those are three simple words that have often, too often, altered the course of the lives of numerous Canadians and turned them upside down. Those three words too frequently have devastating consequences and are the equivalent to a death sentence.

The words evoke for many such an overpowering and paralyzing fear that people are often unable to utter the words. In the next 20 years it is estimated that 1.45 million Canadians will hear those words. One of those people could be a spouse, a parent, a sibling, a best friend or a child.

Cancer knows no prejudice. Cancer knows no boundaries of religion, ethnicity or language. Cancer knows no boundaries of size or shape. Age and gender does not matter. Social status and financial income does not matter. It can affect anyone. Everyone is frightened by those three words.

For all the ramifications that those three simple words have on one's physical health, it is paralleled by the destruction it wreaks on the mental health of individuals. The moment people learn they or a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer is indelibly etched in their lasting memories. Those affected are never the same once they hear those three simple words. The time and relationships we have with those around us have new meaning. We mull over questions that, up until that point, rarely entered our mind. People do not really ponder the essence of their existence as during the period when it could potentially end.

After being diagnosed, for many the aggressive treatments that will likely follow--radiation, chemotherapy or surgery--only serve as additional anguish. The assortment of side effects that result from these treatments--fever, nausea, hair loss, vomiting, infections and extreme fatigue--effectively make the search for the cure as difficult as the diagnosis.

The impact of those three simple words is not restricted to individuals. The diagnosis has ramifications for their loved ones, especially their families. The diagnosis creates a ripple effect that inevitably causes increased stress and tension as circumstances advance beyond control and as the physical changes are mirrored in changes in familial relationships. Families debate who to tell, what to do next, what will happen if. Families try to cope in order to provide the individual with the necessary emotional support and hope to combat the fear that those three simple words instil.

To quote Dr. Barbara Whylie, chief executive officer of the Canadian Cancer Society, “Cancer wounds everyone in our society”.

The leading cause of premature death in Canada, cancer silences 68,000 Canadians each year, taking 950,000 years of potential life from families and loved ones. According to the Saskatchewan Cancer Control report in 2004, in my home province cancer claims the lives of 2,215 loved ones annually. Additionally, primarily due to an increase in lung cancer deaths, the number of cancer deaths per year among females has increased 39% since 1983. However it is about to get much worse.

According to Dr. Whylie, we are on the verge of an unprecedented cancer epidemic in Canada. Over the next three decades it is projected that nearly six million Canadians will hear the three simple words, “You have cancer”, and worse, half of them will die from it. We likely will intimately know someone or, indeed, even be one. How do we explain this increase?

First, as Canada's aging baby boomer population grows older so will the risk of getting cancer.

Second, as Canada's population expands there will be, as a consequence, more cases of cancer diagnosed. The financial cost of the impeding onslaught of cancer diagnosis, while secondary to the immense emotional strain for those affected, is, nevertheless, staggering.

In the next 30 years those three simple words will cost the public treasury nearly $176 billion in direct health care costs and more than $248 billion in lost tax revenue. Furthermore, it is estimated that during this period, Canada could potentially lose approximately $14 billion due to lost productivity from Canadians diagnosed with one of the most common cancers: lung, breast, prostrate and colorectal. Canada must act now and implement a strategy to prevent such a national tragedy.

The House should heed the advice of the World Health Organization and comply with the resolution passed this past May calling on all member states to work with WHO to develop and implement a comprehensive cancer control program. Such programs have the potential to save thousands of Canadians from the experience of hearing those three simple words.

Over the past decade countries, like Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, have developed and funded national plans to combat cancer.

In 1985 the European Union launched an ambitious program entitled Europe Against Cancer, aiming to lower the number of deaths caused by cancer by 15% in the year 2000. The program was implemented with the cooperation of experts, cancer charities, health professionals and national civil servants, primarily focusing on the areas of prevention, screening and education.

Although this ambitious target was not met throughout the EU, a report published in the Annals of Oncology indicated a 10% reduction was achieved in cancer deaths in males and an 8% decrease among females.

Moreover, a handful of EU countries, such as Austria, Finland, Italy and Luxembourg, actually managed to reach or come very close to the 15% reduction goal.

However Canada lags shamefully behind other states with respect to creating a cancer control program. Dr. Whylie has stated:

Canada is one of the few nations in the developed world that has failed to implement a strategy for cancer control.

We are now paying for that failure with our very lives--

--the Canadian approach to cancer control is inconsistent, flawed and driven by political expediency rather than medical realities.

Cancer prevention in Canada is pathetically underfunded and fragmented.

All of this must change and must change soon.

It is imperative that the federal government provide leadership to implement and fund the Canadian strategy for cancer control. The strategy, a wide ranging and coordinated approach to cancer control in Canada, would make certain that we are prepared to meet the unprecedented cancer epidemic about to strike Canada.

The Canadian strategy for cancer control would be a national strategy aimed at bringing about a sustained, coordinated, comprehensive and collaborative approach required to combat the coming cancer epidemic.

Each province would be permitted to independently construct its own unique cancer care management system from a basis of national data and knowledge gathered from across the country and shared by all.

Timely and state of the art information regarding cancer would be accessible to all Canadians regardless of their location. Moreover, the strategy would decrease repetition, fill in gaps and ensure scarce resources are shared.

However the success of a national strategy is dependent upon the federal government advancing a coordinated and targeted approach to cancer care.

We must always be cognizant of the fact that this is a matter of life and death. Indeed, in the time that has elapsed since I commenced my remarks someone in Canada has succumbed to cancer and another two have heard those three simple words, “You have cancer”.

[Justice, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians travel overseas for many different reasons, some for business, some for vacation, but alarmingly some travel for the sole purpose of engaging in sexual activity with children.

Yesterday the first Canadian to be charged with sex tourism crimes pleaded guilty to sadistic sex acts involving Cambodian girls as young as the age of seven.

Sex tourism exploits children worldwide and it is something that absolutely no child should ever have to endure.

Experts estimate that more than a million children are lured or sold into the sex trade each year. Federal law now allows for the prosecution of sex offences committed by a Canadian in a foreign country. It is expected that pedophile Don Bakker will likely serve a mere 10 years in prison. Innocent children will live a life sentence that is unimaginable.

I hope our justice system continues to prosecute these sex tourists and at the same time ensures that pedophiles and violent offenders are never given access to the pornographic material known to be circulated throughout our federal prisons and counterproductive to successful rehabilitation.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is submitted by the residents of my riding of Blackstrap who are calling on the government to implement and fund a national strategy on cancer control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present an important petition submitted by our postmistress, Marjorie Roach of Dundurn, Saskatchewan.

The petition calls upon the federal government to keep the Dundurn post office open and retain the moratorium on rural post office closures.