Lynne Yelich

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to understand how prisoners, convicted rapists and first degree murderers got the right to vote.

Perhaps the minister could explain to women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by the one-third of the sex offenders who reoffend how she intends to ensure their protection when the government puts the rights of innocent victims of rape and sexual assault behind those of violent sex offenders.

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness tried to assure us that convicted criminals do not have access to “any material that could be considered demeaning”. Can the minister explain exactly how pornographic magazines are not demeaning to women?

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to tell that to over 23,000 women who in 2003 were sexually assaulted or raped, and whose lives will never be the same again. Even more, I would like the minister to explain to these women why our prison libraries include pornographic magazines.

Will the minister explain why our prison libraries feel it is necessary to provide pornographic material to violent sex offenders?

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to the recent report “Behind the Bars II”, compiled by the member for Abbotsford, we learn that federal prison inmates have access to subscriptions to pornographic magazines. Over 400 prisoners subscribe to pornographic magazines which are circulated throughout federal prisons, including into the hands of violent sex offenders.

Would the minister of public safety explain how pornography is appropriate material for violent sex offenders and how the government believes this is helping their rehabilitation?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is very hard to talk about a budget when we do not know what the budget is. In the member's remarks, he said that he heard a lot more about politics. I have never seen so much politics played as I have in the last couple of weeks.

As the member said, for the last seven or eight years the government has balanced budgets, but in the last couple of weeks it has been a sad scenario for Canada. Imagine how well we would have done if we had the money that was filtered through ad scam? Just imagine the hospitals that would still be open today. Perhaps the compassionate care program that probably could have been fulfilled as it was needed.

However, perhaps the member did not hear me because I quoted from some people who are very concerned about the budget, people like Nancy Hughes Anthony. We would have thought that with ad scam that accountability would be increased and that is what we are trying to say. There is no accountability. All we are hearing is announcements from coast to coast to coast.

There is no solution for Saskatchewan where we are having a difficult time right now. Farmers are trying to put crops in the fields and trying to sustain a living. I think the suicide rate will be up this year considerably because it is a very sad situation in Saskatchewan. Our Prime Minister and his ministers have failed to recognize the seriousness of the border being closed. I thought that border would be opened because the Government gave us all a bit of hope when it elected its new leader.

I also wanted to mention that the Liberals' approach to budgetary matters is that of an extortionist and perhaps the member who I know has a legal background would have to ask why a lawyer would write me this or perhaps he would agree that the approach is basically as this lawyer accountant wrote me: “I have your money and you'll get it back if you do this for me. You'll never see the money again if you do not vote for the Liberal budget. The problem is that any supposed power to enforce compliance is not real”.

I am disappointed that the member did not really get the speech because he misunderstood that Canadians do not want their dollars wasted. There is only one taxpayer. In Saskatchewan we are victims of a government that just taxes us to death and has no incentives for economic growth. We were counting on this budget helping Saskatchewan become a sustainable province.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I still would like to hear more details of what the minister has in store for the agriculture and rural communities of Canada. To have a quote from Germany does not help us in western Canada. I would like to hear some quotes in western Canada of how we will have some incentives to meet our goals. I was disappointed that I did not hear any made-in-Canada solution.

I would like to speak today about the budget. Bill C-48 is not just about the environment. It is not about child care. It is not about affordable housing. It is not even about anything the Liberals or the NDP alliance would have us believe. The legislation is all about political survival because this government seemingly has one goal, one purpose and one objective: the retention of power, at all costs.

The government is willing to trash today's cherished principles for the political expedience of tomorrow. For example, the Minister of Finance was adamant a few weeks ago, stating that any changes to the budget would be inconceivable because any opposition tampering with this budget would spark a financial downturn in Canada. I quote the finance minister:

You can't go on stripping away the budget, piece by piece...That's not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

The absence of principle and conviction usually makes the once inconceivable a reality in politics. Consequently, only a few weeks later, the finance minister was undercut by his Prime Minister, who allowed the leader of the smallest party in the House to gleefully rewrite the budgetary framework of Canada.

We should take a moment to ponder the magnitude of that act. The finance minister had his agenda dictated to him by the leader of the major national party which consistently garners the least support across Canada. There is a reason for that.

While some limited portions of the NDP agenda may be somewhat appealing, Canadians know that entrusting the public purse to the NDP is about as smart as giving kids caffeine before bedtime. They will tax our energy all night and keep on asking for more.

Canadians cannot endorse the reckless spending and the anti-growth agenda advocated by New Democrats. We only have to look at my home province of Saskatchewan to see how the NDP-managed discourages innovation and drives people away. Accordingly, this new budget represents the beginning of a significant realignment in Canadian politics. The Liberals have abandoned a mainstream approach to governing defined by fiscal prudence to one ripe with billions in unaccountable spending dictated to them by the least popular party in Canada.

Amazingly, the government is demanding members in the opposition endorse the legislation. Not only would this course of action jeopardize Canada's economic future, it would turn the public purse into a prize on what the Waterloo Record has called Canada's news game show, “Let's Spin the Taxpayers' Wheel of Misfortune and Make a Deal”. In a frantic attempt to cling to power, the government has made the first winner of this game show the smallest party in Parliament and its leader.

What did the leader of the fourth place party have to do to win this prize? It is simple. Change his tune completely on this government and agree to prop it up.

The NDP just months ago voted against the budget. The NDP just months ago did not have confidence in this government. The NDP just months ago was prepared to force an election. The NDP was ready to, and in fact did, play politics.

Even more, the leader of the NDP publicly chided my party for having the audacity for refusing to bring down the government and force an election this past February. Why? Because apparently the budget of a few months ago was all wrong, especially for the residents of my home province of Saskatchewan. The NDP went to great lengths. According to the leader of the NDP, the budget did nothing for Saskatchewan and he was extremely concerned about what had happened in the budget.

Let me quote from the February 25 Globe and Mail :

New Democrats said that if the Tories vote for the Liberal budget, they will revel in pointing that out to voters on the hustings, especially in the West, which has several ridings that are Conservative-NDP races. One NDP adviser said the party would have a field day pointing to a Tory vote for a budget that funds the gun registry and does little for farmers.

However, when the government, like a parent desperately trying to silence a pouting child at the toy section of a department store, caved into NDP demands, something odd happened. While the NDP demanded some really expensive toys, $4.6 billion worth of them, paid for with Canadian taxpayers' hard earned money, it demanded nothing for Saskatchewan, and everything that was left out of the first budget was left out again. There is nothing for farmers, nothing for rural communities and nothing for Saskatchewan. I look forward to hearing the NDP explain that on the hustings.

I would also like the Liberal-NDP alliance to explain how this legislation resembles responsible financial management, or how this budget will improve the quality of lives of Canadians because we all know it is not and cannot.

This legislation is not responsible financial management. It represents the worst of the worst in unrestrained spending of the Liberal government. People in my riding and across Canada will not accept this. People like Russel Marcoux, the CEO of the Yanke Group of Companies, said, “we're hearing about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there. Where is it all coming from?”

There is no fiscal responsibility evident right now. People know that if they were to model business decisions after the Liberal-NDP budget, they would not have to worry about making other business decisions for a long time after that. Insolvency will do that for them. Even more troubling, Bill C-48 lays out no plan for spending. It only lays out a lot of spending. It commits millions to a large number of areas with absolutely no plans on how the money will be spent.

Ironically, while the Gomery inquiry is examining sponsorship spending in the 1990s by the Liberal government, this legislation would allow cabinet to again create and implement programs with absolutely no framework. It would allow cabinet to make payments in any manner it deems fit. The Liberal Party of Canada, the party of ad scam and the party of Alfonso Gagliano, wants Canadian taxpayers to trust it with their money, to implement programs with no framework and no accountability. Those are not shrieks of delight from hardworking, overtaxed Canadians.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, the president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, recently stated that one would have thought, what with ad scam and these sorts of things, that the accountability would be increased, but we are seeing that the accountability seems to be decreased. How any rational individual could seriously consider endorsing this total absence of a framework is puzzling at best?

The Liberal Party of Canada created a problem for themselves with ad scam and the resulting tales of deceit and corruption emanating from the Gomery inquiry. Now the Prime Minister and his party want to use the Canadian taxpayers to bail them out.

Like the bank robbers who throw money into the air to confuse the authorities during a getaway, the Liberal Party is trying to deflect attention from ad scam with an unparalleled spending blitz. While the NDP has been a willing getaway driver setting its price for cooperation, the Canadian public cannot and will not easily comply.

If a CEO of any reputable company wanted to increase spending and reduce revenue in the midst of a major crisis, the board of directors would surely ask for his or her resignation. Canadians are the directors of the Canadian government. We should expect no less and demand no less. This is no way to run a country.

We in Saskatchewan have an NDP government. We know what we are talking about when we see our hard earned taxpayer dollars go to a government that has no clue about responsible government and spending.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister speak today. I would like to hear exactly what his detailed plans are for the agricultural and rural areas of Canada. They are probably the ones that can contribute the most to the green plan, but will probably be the ones that get the least in incentives.

[Lupus, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Lupus Day, an opportunity to increase awareness of this disease with a thousand faces.

Lupus is a disease in which the immune system attacks the body's own healthy cells causing tissue damage, organ failure, and in some cases, death. Lupus can strike any tissue or organ in the body, including the skin, muscles, blood vessels, lungs, heart, and brain. Over 50,000 Canadians are affected by lupus. It strikes men, women and children of all ages, but primarily women during the child-bearing years.

While new research brings promising findings each year, there remains no cure for lupus. Early detection and treatment can help to slow the debilitating effects of the disease. However, many physicians are unaware of the symptoms. As a result, many people suffer for years before obtaining the correct diagnosis and treatment.

There is an urgent need to increase lupus awareness. I would like to applaud organizations like Lupus Canada and the Lupus Erythematosus Society of Saskatchewan for providing support for those affected by this disease and raising awareness of lupus.

[*Question No. 126, May 9th, 2005]

With respect to the Employment Insurance Program Compassionate Care Benefit: ( a ) how many people have applied for the benefit each month since it came into effect; ( b ) how many people were granted the benefit; and ( c ) how many people were declined the benefit and for what specific reasons?

(Return tabled)

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on some comments that I made in the debate when it began a couple of weeks ago surrounding the issues of religious freedoms, specifically the lack of any genuine protection of religious freedoms in the legislation before the House.

The lone clause included to protect these freedoms, a clause which states that religious officials will not be forced to perform marriages, has already been ruled as falling within provincial responsibility by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus it is beyond the federal government's power.

Moreover the legislation does nothing to accommodate or even grandfather those civil officials throughout the country who serve as marriage commissioners, even though the justice minister himself has suggested the religious freedoms of these officials should and would be protected. He remarked in a recent interview, “No one should be compelled to perform a same sex marriage contrary to their religion or belief. We believe we can reach accommodations so that those who do not want to perform that same sex marriage, religious officials or civic officials, by reason of religion or conscience will not be required to do so”.

Yet presently some of the provinces are forcing marriage commissioners to perform these marriages, even when doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. This has led to a wave of resignations and human rights complaints from civil officials who have refused to perform ceremonies on religious grounds.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, provincial officials have taken one of the hardest stands with regard to civil officials. Marriage commissioners, regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs or tenure of service, were informed that they must perform same sex marriages or be stripped of their responsibility.

Yet the justice minister, who once stated that protecting the religious freedoms of such officials was desirable, now bizarrely dismisses this as a provincial matter, no longer a concern of the federal government. It is bizarre because the government has included a clause, as mentioned earlier, stating that religious officials will not be forced to perform marriages, clearly a provincial matter.

Nevertheless, the minister is apparently content to disregard the genuine concerns of people like Regina marriage commissioner Orville Nichols. Mr. Nichols simply wants a balance. He is simply requesting that his religious belief systems be tolerated and accommodated in the same manner as others would expect their views to be upheld. If the federal government is intent on altering the definition of marriage, it should ensure protections are in place for people like Orville Nichols.

For anyone who suggests this balance is unfeasible, I refer them to the case of Ontario. Instead of taking a rigid line, like my home province, it sought and achieved a balance. When Ontario updated its laws to accommodate court rulings that legalized same sex marriages, the province was silent on rights and obligations of civil officials. Effectively this has ensured that these officials would not be obliged to perform a marriage contrary to their religious belief system.

This is the proper course of action to take. This is a thoughtful balance. Indeed, even the Toronto Star has admitted as much, stating in a recent editorial, “Sensibly, Ontario has taken a laissez-faire attitude, allowing cities and towns to accommodate staff who do not wish to perform same sex weddings for religious or other reasons”.

The government has failed to achieve such a sensible and balanced approach in this legislation. This legislation teeters too far in one direction.

Traditional religious belief systems and secular values must be recognized in an equitable and thoughtful manner. We must achieve a proper balance.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a representative sample of the views of my constituents on this issue. People in my riding have devoted much time looking at this issue and have developed some well thought out opinions worthy of our consideration. It is important that their voices be heard.

Joe Jeerakathil of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a strong advocate for maintaining the current definition of marriage, reminds us that:

Marriage, as currently defined, predates governments, states, courts and charters of rights.

The Christian Church's definition - 'a union of a man and a woman' - comes from the legal Digest of the Roman Emperor Justinian.

Marriage existed in pre-Christian civilizations and has always been a union between a man and a woman.

The Catholic Church declared marriage a sacrament in the Council of Trent.

The Roman Catholic view of marriage is based on the Aristotelian principle of natural law.

Although Aristotle originated the concept, Thomas Aquinas, the giant of Christian philosophical thought, gave it theological shape. He defined natural law as participation in the eternal law of the universe by rational creatures with a built-in commitment to doing good.

A union of a man and a woman fulfills the natural law or God's law because it leads to procreation and, hence, does not fall within the term 'marriage'.

Another letter I received from a constituent, Pastor Daryl Olson of Outlook, Saskatchewan, yet another supporter of the traditional definition of marriage, reminds us of the important role marriage has in our society. He writes:

The institution of marriage is not a planned invention of human society.

Rather, it signifies a particular relationship between a man and a woman,...

...a unique way of life that has emerged from human existence and experience during the history of humanity with two obvious goals:

...the mutual support of the partners and procreation of children.

By nature, this particular lifestyle has the capacity to fulfill both of these goals...

A same-sex union, however, by its particular and unique nature is incapable of procreation.

This particular illustration of the uniqueness of these two kinds of relationships alone begs for a respectful and separate treatment for both.

In other words, ... just as the institution of marriage has been recognized and protected based on its uniqueness and merits, ...

...similarly, some form of legally formalized same-sex partnerships could be recognized and protected based on its uniqueness and merits.

The institution of marriage and a possible form of legally regulated same-sex partnership, should name and safeguard their unique rights and duties with corresponding laws and regulations.

Those were just two examples that illustrate the strong desire among the vast majority of my constituents to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. Although some in my riding have just as passionately argued the opposite position, I must defer to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of my constituents.

As a result, I would like to state that while I believe the federal government must fully recognize that same sex relationships possess equivalent rights and privileges as opposite sex ones, I am unable to support the legislation. Moreover, I base this vote not only on my own personal convictions but also, if not primarily, on the fact that the majority of the constituents I represent across my province have expressed similar reservations.