Lynne Yelich

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in one of the comments the member made about regional programs.

I wonder if he could take a minute to explain why he does not think those are programs that could be fair and equitable, or that they only concentrate on urban areas and the rural areas are left out. We in western Canada sometimes feel that the regional programs do not work. I would like his thoughts on that.

[Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, would he agree that a cash injection would indeed be the solution? How would he ensure that it got to the farm gate instead of in the hands of the wrong people?

[The Acadians, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lanark—Carleton could not be present today, so he has asked me to deliver the speech that he has researched and written. On behalf of the member for Lanark—Carleton, I begin.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I will be voting against Motion No. 382. My reasons for doing so are twofold. First, I feel that this motion is based on a faulty premise, that being that guilt can be collective and can be passed on from one generation to the next.

Second, despite the good intentions of those who drafted it, the motion seems to attribute alternate responsibilities for the expulsion of the Acadians to the crown which is not an accurate reading of the events of 1755. A more historically accurate reading would lay blame with the colonial governors of New England and the pioneers they represented.

I will begin with the historical argument and come back later to the philosophical one. Many of the facts surrounding the deportation of the Acadians are unchallenged. In 1755 the colonial authorities began a process of uprooting and deporting the part of the Acadian population which had settled on British lands beginning with the centre of the Acadian colony along the east shore of the Bay of Fundy.

Nova Scotia's Governor Lawrence and Governor Shirley, commander in chief of the British forces in New England, began by seizing colonists' firearms to prevent them from using force to resist. Then they took a large number of adult males hostage in order to guarantee the docility of their families at the time of deportation.

In the years which followed, approximately three-quarters of the total Acadian population, or 13,000 people, were deported. Some of these people were sent to England, others to Louisiana and still others were returned to France. Although we know with certainty the degree of suffering caused by the deportations between the years 1755 and 1763, it is much more difficult to pin down historic responsibility for them.

One thing is certain and that is the governors Lawrence and Shirley were at the heart of the decision making and must bear ultimate responsibility. But nothing proves that they acted with the approval of the Parliament of Westminster. According to the most commonly accepted version of events, Lawrence acted with the authorization of the local council in Nova Scotia and parliament and King George did not take part in the planning of the deportations.

As I will discuss momentarily, I emphasize that I will not support the notion of a collective or hereditary guilt, but even if I did support it, I think that the first collective excuses that should be conveyed to the Acadian people should come from the government of Maine.

Nonetheless, the Queen recently chose to address this issue, deferring a decision on any apology to the Canadian cabinet. As we are all aware, cabinet recently dealt with this issue and this past December, the Governor General signed a royal proclamation regarding this issue. Excerpts from the proclamation read as follows:

Whereas on July 28, 1755, the Crown, in the course of administering the affairs of the British colony of Nova Scotia, made the decision to deport the Acadians;

Whereas the deportation of the Acadian people, commonly known as the Great Upheaval, continued until 1763 and had tragic consequences, including the deaths of many thousands of Acadians;

Whereas the Crown acknowledges these historical facts and the trials and suffering experienced by the Acadian people during the Great Upheaval;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, directs that a Proclamation do issue designating July 28 of every year as “A Day of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval”.

I commend the decision of the government to issue this proclamation, one which seems entirely appropriate to me.

I believe there is a legitimate expectation that all participants in the public life of a civilized society should adopt a moral attitude toward the past. A moral attitude involves recognizing and embracing those past actions which are regarded as good and just and rejecting those which are regarded as unjust or monstrous.

The acknowledgement of the trials and suffering experienced by the Acadian people and the designation of an annual day to commemorate this unfortunate chapter in our history is an appropriate way to address this unfortunate episode.

In contrast to the proclamation issued by the Crown, however, the motion before the House explicitly requests an apology for this historical wrong. This is quite a different concept. It rests on the idea that actual guilt for past injustice can be passed on institutionally and collectively in precisely the same way that the residual effects of that wrong continue to have some impact on the descendants of those who suffered the initial wrong. This is simply untrue.

I do not accept the notion that an institution can maintain a heritage or a collective guilt that is imposed upon successive generations of those who become members of that institution or who fall under its protection.

An attitude of collective guilt or responsibility, or worse yet, of expecting others to accept a mantle of guilt, or responsibility for acts in which they themselves did not take part strikes me as being of no utility at all.

A debate similar to the one taking place today took place in the House 20 years ago on Pierre Trudeau's last day as prime minister. He was asked by Brian Mulroney in question period to issue an apology for the war time internment of Canadians of Japanese descent. Trudeau's response reveals a subtle grasp to the distinction that I am attempting to draw here today. He said:

I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we... were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why...say that an apology is much better than an expression or regret?

I do not think that it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time...

I agree with the reasoning of this statement. In the case of the great upheaval, the wronged parties are long dead. Those who committed the wrong are long dead. The British Empire, by whose power the wrongs were perpetrated, no longer exists and the principle of mercantilism on which it was founded has been firmly and absolutely rejected by the present British Crown and state.

Most important of all, perhaps, the British colonies of New England, in whose interest the wrongs were committed, ceased to exist as political entities over two centuries ago, with the coming of American independence.

So no individual is left, nor even any corporate entity, which can truthfully and honestly accept guilt in its own name, or serve as the justified target of the indignation of others.

This does not excuse us from a responsibility to adopt a moral attitude of condemnation toward this great wrong any more than we can adopt an attitude of moral neutrality toward the monstrous evils of more recent times.

As moral actors, we need to recognize the existence of these past wrongs, to identify them to our fellow citizens and to do all we can to ensure that no modern version of this wrong can occur.

As such, I would like to applaud the sincere efforts of the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes to ensure that this episode in our history is not forgotten.

Nonetheless, I believe that the recent proclamation, which acknowledges this issue without extending an official apology, is sufficient to express our sorrow for this past wrong. It allows us, without condemning others, to indicate our determination that no such future wrong will ever be tolerated on Canadian soil.

Hence, I disagree on both historical and philosophical grounds with the fundamental assumption on which Motion No. 382 rests, that the Crown bears a further responsibility.

First, I take issue with the historical claim that the British Crown, past or present, bears the ultimate responsibility for the great upheaval.

Second, I disagree with the philosophical claim that we can inherit a collective guilt which places on us a responsibility to apologize for events which took place over two centuries ago.

Therefore, I must vote against this motion and encourage others to do so as well.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the lack of mention of the agriculture industry in the throne speech. Does she think the government realizes how important that industry is to Canada? Also does she think the government understands the seriousness of what is happening out there to the industry?

In our ridings, provinces and regions the BSE problem and border shutdown are serious. It is coast to coast. It goes much beyond just saving the family farm. This is about an industry that is going down and we are very concerned.

I watched the take note debate and heard the stories of members from the Liberal ridings as well as throughout the Ontario and Quebec ridings. All parties have been affected, as have their constituents. I am wondering, do they realize they are the people who are to make decisions? I would like her comments.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I understand this is a new portfolio and a new department. I would like to know a little about it. The minister will have four prairie provinces for which he will have a budget. How will he decide these budgets and who will make the decisions on what gets money from the budget? Is it divided evenly among the provinces?

I just want to ask the member a bit about the guidelines of his new portfolio.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. John's West.

The throne speech; been there, done that. That is what it was. Canadians want to move on. We were told that the throne speech marks the start of a new government, a new agenda, a new way of working. This is still the Liberal Party and this throne speech could have been copied from any other similar speeches over the last 10 years.

Just to tell members how the throne speech played at home, this letter to the editor on the throne speech, written by Christopher Twa of Saskatoon, was in our local StarPhoenix . It states:

Citizens have obligation to demand accountability

Like many others, I was always comfortable in forecasting political events from a barstool or from the moderate recline of my favourite armchair.

However, I had never seen a throne speech before Monday. It always seemed a great non-event; brave assertions written exclusively to be discarded later.

I watched the usher hammer on the door, MPs exchange handshakes and sly winks in a bizarre courtship and three-quarters of the Governor General's speech before I turned the TV off because of boredom.

Later that evening, as I watched Americans beg for accountability, I felt the first twinge of guilt. While many in Canada are content to dub the U.S. an oppressive regime, we do little to hold our own government answerable for its actions.

Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson had spoken of the need to make politics more engaging just before I turned the TV off. She is right. Perhaps it is us rather than the politicians who need to become proactive.

If we remain mute or only vaguely grumble on every issue, should we not expect our voted representatives to stumble blindly? Accountability only works if we show concern. We are as responsible as the politicians for our nation's well-being.

That is what I would like to talk about today.

We have the same Liberal government with the same members in a new seating arrangement who have tried to rule Canada for the past 10 years. Let us not pretend that this is a new government with a new agenda.

As a proud westerner I am very concerned that even though the new Prime Minister has promised to work toward less western alienation, this Speech from the Throne has left us out in the cold once again.

It continues the Liberal legacy of disregard for a major and essential part of Canada, our bread basket. Farmers are wondering why they have once again been ignored. Little in this speech gives reassurance or concrete assistance to our ailing farms, our hardworking farmers and producers across Canada.

In the vagueness of the speech, the government is supposedly dedicated to Canada's farm economy, but there was absolutely nothing that tells us how or that gives the farmers the hope that they were searching for.

Our agriculture and food sector is the third largest employer of Canadians and one of the country's top five industries. It accounts for more than 8% of the Canadian gross domestic product. Recognition of this importance is nowhere to be seen in the throne Speech.

In the last few years our farmers have been crushed by extraneous circumstances, such as mad cow, drought and floods.

In revealing his vision in the throne speech, the Prime Minister showed his complete lack of understanding of the BSE crisis and his lack of compassion for our farmers, specifically our beef farmers.

Canadians are suffering from coast to coast in every region and province. It has been absolutely devastating. Last night we had speakers on the BSE debate. We had speakers from Vancouver, from Peace River, from Quebec and from Ontario. Every province and every region has been affected.

When I go to my home city stories like this are in the newspaper. The lack of news coverage does not mean the BSE crisis is over. Yesterday's paper reads:

Saskatchewan's feedlot industry is in a rapid decline as producers face the biggest disaster of the nine-month mad cow ordeal, some in the cattle business warned Tuesday.

“I think that we're in the 11th hour of a catastrophe, there's no question”....

“The market deteriorates every day and there's no light at the end of the tunnel to speak of”....

“The feedlot industry is in huge trouble. They're getting to the point where they have no margins left for operating lines and they can't buy cattle.”

The head of the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association warned Monday that Canada's feeder industry could collapse in as little as six weeks if nothing changes for the better.

--the problem is “monumental.”

“Most of us don't have the ability to speculate anymore--we've lost enough equity that either ourselves, our own management ability, or our bankers are telling us no more speculation.

“We've lost all our equity, our collateral.”

They say that the desperation among ranchers is very clear. “They're just grasping at the last straw, trying to buy some time and hope beyond hope this border issue gets resolved.”

The headlines “BSE costs total $3 billion in Canada”, was ignored in Monday's throne speech.

The situation has reached emergency proportions and the Prime Minister, I believe, has to treat it as an emergency. As many of my colleagues said last night in debate, this does warrant an emergency level. I think the Prime Minister would do that if he had a real connection to the agriculture sector or if he had any real sense of the severity of the situation.

Federal alienation in western provinces has become a real problem.

It was interesting to read in one of the papers this week “West says it has got the cold shoulder”. The paper had interviewed Robert Roach, the senior policy analyst for the Calgary based think tank, the Canada West Foundation. He was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying that the government should have made a commitment to structural change to give westerners a voice at the federal level. Options, according to Mr. Roach, include reforming the Senate and recruiting senior bureaucrats for the west, even if they do not speak French. As he said, “Bilingualism needs to be counterbalanced by something else, because it's a very practical barrier to westerners”.

Western alienation can be overcome with awareness that all the western provinces are as valuable as the eastern ones. The people living in the west require the same services, financial assistance and respect that those in the east have long been receiving.

The GST relief offered to our municipalities is welcome, but the GST was set up to reduce a debt. Even though the Liberals had wanted to scrap this tax altogether, it is now being used as a cash injection. Also, as many of our communities in Saskatchewan and in Canada are not considered cities, they too will receive a significant piece of the pie.

I am in support of the idea of including municipalities but have grave concerns about how the government plans to include all the provinces in this arrangement. The government could vacate an amount allowing the provincial governments to give to the municipalities a percentage of the gas tax.

My concern is that this money will not be flagged for infrastructure. We need some details on how this money will be spread out. The $7 billion over 10 years, the GST rebate to cities that is mentioned in the throne speech, is really just 10% of the money that Ottawa collects.

The government keeps making these promises with regard to the constituents in my riding. Many of them have written or phoned my office asking for some real results. My constituents, relating to their own experience, are telling me that employment insurance is not working. They are telling me that there are not enough staff to handle peak times, which is often in the fall. They are complaining that it takes too long to start receiving their benefits. If they had a surplus of cash they probably would not have applied for EI in the first place.

The students in my riding who attend university and other post-secondary institutions are really concerned about the process of applying for student loans.

We need a commitment. We need a real effort. We need a government with real integrity and the throne speech needs to have substance.

The government must re-examine and redefine our agriculture sector, our aboriginal issues, our health care system and our cities. It needs to give Canadians real dollars, real effort and real integrity. It has to be a country defined by its citizens, not by the government.

[Canadian Light Source, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in December scientists at the University of Saskatchewan's national synchrotron facility were basking in the glow of a tiny, yet very significant, dot of light, the first visible light captured by the Canadian light source, one of the most advanced synchrotrons in the world and the only one in Canada.

Referred to as the Swiss knife of science, intense synchrotron light acts like a supermicroscope, allowing researchers to probe the very structure of matter and to analyze physical, chemical, geological and biological processes. The potential for application of this research is tremendous.

CLS has positioned not just Saskatoon but Canada on the cutting edge of science and will serve as a magnet for top researchers. Testing of the first suite of beam lines is currently underway and routine operations are set to begin this fall.

Congratulations to the University of Saskatchewan and the CLS team. Once again we see the true bright lights are not in the benches of government, but at home in Saskatchewan.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have an editorial referring to the levies on property owners. I want to hear what the member thinks about this:

It's tough to quibble with such initiatives as exempting municipal governments from the GST--Ottawa never should have been taxing municipal governments, which are financed by levies on property owners paid with their after-tax income--and even with returning a portion of gas taxes to civic governments to address infrastructure needs that have been neglected for too long.

Government members are talking like that tax is theirs to spend. We pay those taxes. Those taxes are levied on us. Would the member like to comment on this article?

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I understand the member was the agriculture chair so I have a question for him from the Saskatchewan stock growers in my riding.

They are asking about a need for regulations to be compatible with the policy and regulations of the United States. He said that currently Canada requires feeder cattle imported from the U.S. to be tested for livestock diseases; that the cost of these tests is an impediment to trade; that bluetongue and anaplasmosis do not pose a risk to human health as both are animal diseases only; and that the current restrictions are in excess of the acceptable risk to the livestock industry and impedes our ability to regain market access for live cattle to the U.S. as part of our BSE recovery strategy.

I would like to know if the member could comment on that.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member and his comments on partisan politics. I could not agree more.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the promise that was given by the Liberals when they went into Saskatchewan and the western provinces and said that they would address western alienation but that the population had to send a Liberal MP to Ottawa and then they would get something. What does the member think about that? What is so good about it?