Lynne Yelich

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and yes, I do think it would make a little bit of difference, because we could be working on what we are here for, and that is to represent the people. We would not be wondering whether there is any use in presenting legislation, putting private members' bills on the order paper, or in doing any of the work that we are elected to do.

I find it very discouraging to come here not knowing from day to day if we are going to have an election this weekend, or whether I should do some work or investigating. I have some legislation that I personally want to look into and spend some time on, but will I have to just stop everything, put down my work and get back and campaign?

Right now in my own riding there are other parties out there just doing whatever they can to make sure that they are going to run a really rigorous campaign against me, and I have to work here, representing the people. Therefore, I think that a fixed election date would bring some accountability because I would be able to put my time, my resources, my energy and my focus on my work here, as I was elected to do.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Again, Mr. Speaker? We are having a hard time keeping this debate relevant.

We are talking about democratic deficit and the government still insists on perpetuating fallacies. When will the Liberal government realize that we are serving an intelligent electorate that wants to make an informed vote? It should stop trying to fool the electorate with misinformation and get to the real business of governing.

Let us take away the distraction of when an election will be held so that the real issues and legislation get the attention they deserve. That is relevant.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to our motion this afternoon. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, there being a serious democratic deficit in Canada, particularly in the domination of the executive over the House of Commons by providing to the Prime Minister the sole political prerogative to determine when Parliament should be dissolved for the purposes of a general election;

That, unless the Government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates; and

That the Government should bring in measures to establish fixed election dates to be held on the third Monday of the month that is four years after the month in which the polling day for the most recently held general election fell.

This is truly a timely motion. Canadians have been held in an electoral limbo for several months, and thanks to the government they have been without real leadership for more than a year.

Under the Constitution an election must be held every five years. Traditionally, general elections take place every four years or so. In the hands of a democratically minded government, this system of calling an election works reasonably well and in the interests of Canadians. In the hands of the Liberal government, however, the issue of when to call a federal election has become an exercise in political and public manipulation.

We saw that clearly during the reign of our former Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, as he used the threat of a snap election to control his caucus on crucial legislative decisions. It was the same shifting date scenario when it came to his pending retirement and the election of a new party leader.

The current Prime Minister is fond of attacking the democratic deficit and of telling Canadians how he will eliminate this blight on the relationship between the government and its subjects. Eliminating the Prime Minister's ability to call an election whenever he chooses by setting fixed election dates would be an excellent first step in addressing this democratic deficit. Yet, the Prime Minister continues to paralyze Canadians and Parliament, while he waits for the most opportune time for his party to survive an election.

Elections should not be called on the personal whim of a prime minister, depend on favourable political polls, or whatever else the prime minister is worried about. In an era where voter turnout is low, where young people are disenchanted and disinterested in how our country is governed, and where there is great concern about how our tax dollars are spent, such self-serving behaviour is an insult to all Canadians.

Fixed election dates would remove much of the uncertainty we now face. Canadians would not be wondering each day whether the Prime Minister has made a decision.

Barring a situation of non-confidence, Canadians would know with certainty when to expect the next federal election. Parliament would not be at a standstill, with MPs and senators working with largely recycled legislation. There would be new bills, with appropriate time for debate, committee study and revisions.

Electoral candidates and organizers would not be wondering when they should invest resources in their campaigns and preparatory efforts. Again, consistent time frames could be established. Knowing exactly when the next election would be held would also add some transparency to a system of government that badly needs it.

Pre-election spending sprees would be more identifiable for what they truly are, as would premature campaign visits disguised as government business. There are some who would criticize fixed election dates as too American in style or in nature, that such a system would be inconsistent with the confidence convention that demands a government retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or resign.

That concern is addressed by this motion. It states:

That, unless the Government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates;

The integrity of our parliamentary system, based on the older, more establish British parliamentary system, would remain intact. The bottom line is that this motion just makes good common sense. Having fixed election dates makes good common sense. Making government and participation in the democratic system more palatable to Canadians makes good common sense.

During his next election campaign, commencement date unknown, the Prime Minister will try to sell Canadians on his package of electoral reforms to address the democratic deficit.

He has stated:

In effect, the command-and-control systems of central authority in Ottawa have pushed the views of citizens and communities to the side.

We agree.

Now, today, we have an opportunity to eliminate some of that centralized control. I encourage the Prime Minister and his colleagues to take this step and show that they really are serious about dealing with the democratic deficit and about re-engaging Canadians.

Elections are about more than choosing a Prime Minister and elected representatives. Those choices reflect Canadians' interests, views, values and policy objectives. Elections determine the people who will help implement those interests for the next half decade.

The electoral process must be as fair as possible, with all parties and individual candidates being as prepared as possible. Unfortunately, that cannot be the case when only one party knows when the election will be held. Everyone else is put in a situation of extreme disadvantage, and that is not in the best interests of Canadians or of a truly democratic process.

I would like to conclude with some personal thoughts. I was elected in 2000. That was another election that was called on a whim. I remember that the prime minister at the time even said it was because our leader of the day challenged him. I saw how disrespectful that prime minister was of his power, power that only he had. Then I watched him as he did the same thing with his resignation. Now our current Prime Minister is doing the same. It seems they have no faith or respect for the electorate. I remember that the campaign in 2000 was all about how we were going to kill health care and pensions, ridiculous notions.

Are you signalling that I am out of time, Mr. Speaker?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the member not think that it is a bit costly to have big billboards across western Canada of our ministers? I think the taxpayers would rather have an election than have big billboards. I am pricing them out myself right now and they cost $1,400 a month. I would think that is fairly expensive when we do not know when there will be an election. I would like to ask the member whether he thinks that is perhaps costly when he says that campaigning ahead of time is very costly but not for this--

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member not think that this would be costly, not only for us but, I am thinking, for the people who have to set up the offices, the returning officers, and the people who run the elections?

What kind of a position does that put them in when they are renting space? Do they hold on to the space? Do they put downpayments on it? How long will this be? Will it be one year from now? Do they get their officers trained? These would be all the costs for an election that may or may not happen.

Could the member tell me what kind of pressures this has put on returning officers across Canada in a year when all the boundaries and names are being changed? The returning officers do not know what name they are running under sometimes. There are all sorts of difficulties that they themselves have.

Rules are being made and I would like to know whether the member thinks that is such a smart idea.

[Avian Flu, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this emergency debate tonight regarding the avian influenza outbreak.

While the avian flu is strongly connected to British Columbia's Fraser Valley, the issue is one of national importance. We need only to look to the far reaching economic devastation and personal losses suffered as a result of the BSE crisis to see that. After nearly a year of inaction, the Liberal government has still not been able to succeed in having the American border reopened to our cattle industry, nor has it seen fit to ensure timely compensation to affected cattle producers.

Now we have heard an order to cull commercial poultry flocks but the agriculture minister has not been able to let British Columbia producers know when they can expect compensation. It is easy to speak about agriculture or the agriculture industry. Whether we call it an industry, a sector or a business, the truth is that we are dealing with real people trying not to lose their livelihoods because of situations far beyond their control.

As a member of Parliament who lives in an area that has been ravaged by the BSE crisis, I ask the members opposite to develop a workable avian flu compensation program before this situation becomes as bad as the one faced by the cattle industry. The potential for economic disaster within the poultry industry has already begun.

While economic disaster looms for the people within this industry, our Prime Minister has different messages depending on where in the country he is speaking. In British Columbia he says that it is a priority, yet in Quebec he tells his audience that the problem is on the other side of the Rockies. This is indicative of how the Liberal government defines crisis in Canada: by region.

Whether it is SARS, BSE or the avian flu, these crises affect the entire nation and our Prime Minister and his government have to begin governing, recognizing that this is one country regardless of how diverse the regions.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has ordered approximately 19 million birds from commercial poultry flocks destroyed in an effort to contain and eradicate the avian flu disease, a contagious viral infection caused by the influenza virus type A. What will the economic impact of this cull be, not merely in the destruction of the poultry but in the cleanup and sterilization process necessary to ensure a similar outbreak does not reoccur? Despite the absence of definitive numbers, we know the cost will be catastrophic to poultry producers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

This disease is not a newcomer to North America. According to the inspection agency information, cases of low pathogenic avian influenza in turkeys were often reported in the autumn during the 1960s. Three other Canadian cases were discovered between 1975 and 2000 and avian flu has also been reported repeatedly in the United States.

What is particularly disturbing is that unlike the case with BSE, there is a vaccination that could have helped to contain the disease. Unfortunately, it was not used in British Columbia and will not be used as a preventive measure in the control area in the Fraser Valley. An April 13 document from CFIA stated:

Vaccination has not been an option for a number of reasons. Preventive vaccination is not economically feasible in this situation given the large number of birds affected. Should the birds be vaccinated, the presence of antibodies from vaccination could not be distinguished from antibodies from natural infection. And, given that the effectiveness of vaccination could take up to two to three weeks, the virus could persist and spread during this timeframe.

A proactive position could have protected birds before the outbreak became a problem. Now we are faced with reactive measures.

Again, if I may draw a parallel to the BSE situation in that case, Health Canada officials had previously warned that proposed measures to curb the disease were inadequate and that Canada was not prepared for a potential outbreak. Those warnings were ignored and I have to wonder if some earlier preventive measures could have made a difference there.

As Fraser Valley Duck & Goose Ltd. managing partner, Ken Falk, wrote about vaccination in a letter to the members for Langley—Abbotsford and Fraser Valley:

I understand that there are considerations with our international trading partners that don't allow us to use it.

If that is the case, then allow those that rely on the domestic market only to vaccinate, and those that rely on the international market can sort out the issue for their products, politically or otherwise.

Poultry producers, such as Mr. Falk, have an intimate understanding of the industry and how best to get it back on track.

I would hope the minister and his staff would be looking to producers for guidance in coming up with the best possible solution to this difficult situation.

As the people most affected by this crisis, the producers will be able to provide valuable input. Yet, when I look to the CFIA and its description of our emergency response strategy, I am not convinced that this is the case. I will quote:

Canada's emergency response strategy in the event of the outbreak of a foreign animal disease is to eradicate the disease and re-establish the country's disease free status as quickly as possible.

That is an admirable first step in addressing a situation such as the avian flu but the vagueness of the strategy ignores important issues, such as compensation for producers and assistance for workers affected by the cull. What can they expect to ease the financial strain?

There is a vagueness of this strategy in this important issue. They have no idea how to prevent similar outbreaks in the future. What measures are in place? How will the preservation of specialty breeds be ensured? How will we regain market losses and the erosion of our competitive edge?

The time and effort it will take to rebuild the industry; how will the government facilitate the process?

The Liberals do not have a stellar record when it comes to agricultural programs and delivering money to those in need when they need it.

I urge the members opposite to ensure that this will not be the case for the people in British Columbia and to deliver immediate attention to this crisis situation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a budget was released recently in my Province of Saskatchewan. When I was reading about the provincial government's financial plan, I noticed a line written by one of our local columnists and it made a lot of sense to me. He said that budgets are all about choices. That is so true.

By making those choices, the government's preparation of a budget also sends a series of messages about its priorities, values and sense of responsibility.

The federal 2004 budget sent some very serious messages to the people of my riding in Blackstrap and across Canada. The message that the government wanted to convey was that its days of scandal and irresponsible spending were over, that taxpayers could rest easy knowing their money was in safe hands and would be monitored.

What Canadians heard was that program spending had jumped to record levels while we remained saddled with ineffective money pits such as the gun registry, EI surplus, and ever emerging stories of corruption, abuse and scandal.

In his address this morning, the finance minister's parliamentary secretary mentioned his government's commitment to helping communities overcome some of the challenges that they face: roads, affordable housing, public transit, safe neighbourhoods and ample green spaces. He said the federal government was starting to respond to those needs and yes, offering a full rebate of the GST is a beginning. It will put some money back into the coffers of communities large and small, but it is not nearly enough to help provide necessary infrastructure.

Roads, sewers and waterworks are all large ticket items essential to maintaining our standard of living. A couple of thousand dollars in GST rebates will not buy a lot of waterline in a rural community. So we turn to the municipal rural infrastructure fund which will now be spent over five years rather than ten. This will provide some money in the short term, but it does not fit into a predictable, stable, long term plan.

What is not included in this implementation discussion today is the matter of the federal government sharing its gas tax revenues with municipalities. The billions of dollars in fuel tax collected by the federal government each year would go a long way toward helping communities achieve some of their infrastructure goals, certainly more than limited GST dollars. We have heard that transferring fuel revenue to other levels of government is a complex task, one that could not possibly have been implemented in time for the budget. Maybe so, but this is not a new request.

My party, and its predecessors have been calling for a fuel tax revenue sharing plan for a long time. Municipal leaders have been pleading for help, watching their communities crumble under the burden of increasing responsibilities, many of those downloaded from the federal level, without the proper resources and tools needed for their proper delivery.

Agriculture is another area of particular interest in my riding and it has been largely ignored by the budget. Farmers and producers in the west have been reeling from drought, grasshoppers, subsidy wars, trade disputes, BSE and most recently a financial hit in the provincial budget. Where has the government been?

A multimillion dollar package was thrown at the cattle industry to help cope with the BSE crisis, an on-going crisis I might add, but this money is long overdue. Farmers needed those dollars months ago, not just when the government thought it would be politically expedient to offer a handout.

What assurances can the government provide that the money will go to the people who really need it, to the farmers trying to hold on to their land, businesses, homes and livelihoods.

It seems that regardless of the intentions behind various packages the bottom line for farmers has not changed for the better. In Saskatchewan, in fact, we are dealing with huge negative farm incomes. Agriculture is the mainstay in the economy of the west and throughout Canada. Programs of funding must be managed wisely and effectively for all of our benefit.

The budget also dealt extensively with the future. One element of that future is the education of our young people. Unfortunately, post-secondary education is slowly becoming an elite only privilege in Canada. Lower income students who face the high cost of tuition, books and costs of living, emerge from school with huge debt, often as much as a mortgage and complete with interest.

Ideally, these new graduates would land a stable, high paying job immediately and begin the long process of paying down that debt. However, it is not an ideal world and in our economy graduates may find themselves out of school, out of work and out of money.

The government's initiative to alter the Canadian student loans program said it would be easier to borrow money. To borrow more money does not address this problem. On a more positive note, the budget allows for the creation of a learning bond to encourage low income families to save for their child's education and the enhancement of the Canada education saving grant that will be enhanced for low and middle income families.

I congratulate the government on these measures which, if implemented properly, will reduce some barriers for access to post-secondary education. At the same time I have to consider some of the other promises that the government has failed to fulfill, including providing only half of the $100 million a year promised for grants for needy students, and missing its targets on interest relief.

I have only addressed three components of this budget. We have heard about other parts today. The bottom line is that it is the government's right to implement the budget it has prepared.

However, it is imperative to remember it is Canadians who fund these initiatives and it is Canadians who will either benefit or be hurt by how their tax dollars are managed and how their tax dollars are spent.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a few remarks regarding the budget. I should say that I am sharing my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

[Holocaust Memorial Service, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of attending the first annual Holocaust Memorial Service at the Jewish Community Centre in Saskatoon, one of many events held to remember the six million people who perished during this awful time in our history and to salute those who survived.

Like others the world over, I wish there had never been a Holocaust to remember, but there was. With anti-Semitic crimes, like the destruction of a Jewish school library in Montreal still present today, the memorial's theme of “Strengthening Through Memory” is even more important.

Genocide, whether in the form of the Jewish Holocaust, or more recently in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, is a part of our history that must never be repeated.

Hate has no place in our society and I thank Congregation Agudas Israel for helping to promote that message.

[Government of Canada, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we in Saskatchewan cheered the tabling of the opposition leader's bill calling for fixed elections dates.

Pummelled by a provincial NDP budget targeting farmers, a federal Liberal government that has failed to re-open the U.S. border and a Prime Minister trying to dig his way out of a scandal by distracting us with budget promises he likely will not keep, the people in my province welcome a measure that will bring some stability and sanity to a government system that otherwise makes a mockery of Parliament.

Budgets, policy and legislation should be about enhancing life for Canadians and not about manipulation and political expediency while we wait for an election that may or may not be called, depending on when it is convenient.