Lynne Yelich

[Airline Industry, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, transport, finance and Senate committees are currently studying the air traveller's security charge and the impact it is having on the travelling public.

Numbers given to me today from the Saskatoon Airport Authority show that air travel between Saskatoon and Regina fell by 50% between April and August this year, compared to the same time period in 2001.

This tax is indisputably devastating to short haul routes and to small market economies. Why does the Minister of Finance refuse to axe this tax?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has pledged to ratify the Kyoto protocol before the end of this year, endorsing an international treaty before a comprehensive study has taken place, before the opportunity for meaningful dialogue with all affected parties and, most important, before a detailed plan has been presented. This all begs the question: why the haste?

This agreement has inspired more concern than confidence. The scientific data upon which the government is relying is ridden with uncertainty and speculation. We have heard how different models have resulted in different climate scenarios. It seems no one can agree on what will happen. Despite this uncertainty, the Prime Minister is willing to endorse a treaty committing all Canadians to find a solution to a yet to be clearly identified problem.

Putting aside the scientific arguments, ratifying Kyoto as it now stands could be financially devastating. There are multitudes of numbers coming forward and none of them are encouraging.

My home province of Saskatchewan is Canada's second largest oil producer and third largest gas producer. We have the second highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. What is the cost of compliance for us?

The president of SaskPower recently estimated that Kyoto could cost our provincial power utility as much as $250 million each and every year. If so, one of the top industrial companies in our province has said that ratifying Kyoto could be the move that would send them south of the border. The Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce has called the protocol fatally flawed and has made similar statements at the city level.

One internal government study has pegged the impact of Kyoto on Saskatchewan's economy at 4% of GDP by 2020. That is my province. What about each and every other ordinary Canadian?

Electricity bills are predicted to jump 50% or more and home heating could double as energy producers are all anticipating additional costs for compliance. Industries, such as steel production, aluminum production and cement production, have all said that their costs would increase substantially. Gasoline prices are predicted to increase from $1.10 to $1.30 per litre over the next three years. One does not need an economics degree to figure out what this will do to our national financial picture.

As of mid-November, 97 countries have ratified the protocol. This includes 25 developed countries that account for 37.4% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps more important, the total includes 72 countries, such as India, China and Mexico, which do not have to make emission reductions. Together with the United States, which has refused to ratify Kyoto, they make up 60% of man-made global greenhouse has emissions.

In contrast, Canada produces only 2%. Even if Canada could achieve its lofty targets under Kyoto, the impact would be negligible. Our two largest and closest trading partners, the United States and Mexico, are not signatories to the Kyoto protocol. How can we as Canadians compete?

Each and every person I have heard from wants to do his or her part to be a responsible global citizen. What they question is whether the Kyoto protocol is the proper channel by which to achieve this goal. I ask members to keep in mind that this is not a case of Kyoto or nothing. There are other options. In Saskatchewan there are countless initiatives, from agricultural production to energy related activity, all aimed at fulfilling a goal to secure and protect our global environment.

There is a conservation cover program, operated by Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, which will significantly increase carbon sinks in agricultural soils. There is the innovation science fund to assist in the establishment of the international test centre for carbon dioxide capture at the University of Regina. There are two wind turbine projects that represent the third largest wind power developments in Canada. Provincially, Saskatchewan recently passed new laws to provide grants to offset fuel taxes on ethanol produced and used in this province. Finally, the City of Saskatoon will be using canola based fuel in some of the city buses as part of a two year project studying the use of biodiesel.

Those examples are proof that meaningful environmental change can be brought about without compromising the fiscal integrity of Canada. I urge the government to reconsider its position to ratify the Kyoto protocol and instead build a plan that allows us to help our environment while also protecting our economy.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member talk about all the constituents who had written to him and about the letter he received from the chamber of commerce. Did the chamber of commerce ask the member not to ratify Kyoto? What were its concerns and how does he expect to answer its concerns specifically?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a federal plan. Does he think there has been adequate consultation between the provinces and the federal government?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the hon. member for Yellowhead. I was wondering if he thinks that ratifying the Kyoto accord would further widen the gap in the standard of living between Canada and the United States and if the investment freeze would only intensify. I would like to hear his comments on what he thinks of the standard of living and where it will go with ratifying the Kyoto accord.

[Citizenship Act, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-203, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the oath or affirmation of citizenship. Under this bill, sponsored by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, it is proposed the oath of citizenship be amended to reflect what it means to be a citizen of Canada.

The current oath has been in place for decades and reflects the sentiments of the time during which it was crafted. The current oath states:

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The government recently introduced Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship which, if passed, is intended to modernize and update the old Citizenship Act which was enacted in 1977. Part of Bill C-18 includes a change to the oath new Canadians are expected to take at their citizenship ceremony. Under Bill C-18 the new citizenship oath would be:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

It is imperative that we recognize the importance of the oath and what it means to the thousands of new Canadians who utter it each year as they begin their lives as citizens of Canada.

This is explicitly addressed in Bill C-18, where it is specified that, generally, an oath of citizenship is to be made with solemnity and dignity during the course of a formal citizenship ceremony. At this ceremony, which is viewed as a milestone in the lives of new citizens, we are reminded that all citizens of Canada should demonstrate mutual respect and understanding, so that each citizen can contribute to the best of his or her ability in Canadian society.

While the proposed version of the oath under Bill C-18 more clearly defines some of the values Canadians hold dear, there is still room for improvement. Under Bill C-203 the oath of citizenship would be as follows:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

For those who wish to swear their allegiance in accordance with religious convictions, the oath is changed from “a people united by their solemn trust” to “a people united by God”.

At the outset I should note that Bill C-203, which would otherwise be votable, is no longer votable due to the fact that the oath is being addressed in government Bill C-18. Therefore, the main purpose of the debate today is to speak to the proposed revisions to our oath of citizenship and to lay the groundwork for amendments to Bill C-18 which could be voted on.

I am concerned that the oath proposed under Bill C-203 is not framed in the active tense in terms of any formalized pledge. I believe that either form of pledge under Bill C-203 would be improved by the term “in pledging” being replaced with “I pledge”. A person in short transition to Canadian citizenship is thereby required to make the following statement, explicitly and without reservation: “I pledge allegiance to Canada”.

In these uncertain times, it is important that the allegiance of any Canadian citizen is to Canada. Canada has it own social, cultural and historical identity. Why not embrace moves to modernize citizenship by crafting a uniquely Canadian oath that reflects not only the values of our nation, but also the responsibilities that go along with citizenship in such a country?

In proposing a new oath under Bill C-18, some of the emphasis on the monarchy has been removed. The pledge of allegiance is to the Queen alone, rather than also to her heirs and successors.

Under Bill C-203, the proposed oath contains no reference to the monarchy at all. Rather, new citizens would be asked to unite with other Canadians in upholding and promoting the fundamental principles by which we live and govern ourselves.

Canada attracts hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world each year. These are people who choose to make Canada their home. Those who become citizens do so by choosing to embrace those principles that are the essence of Canada. It does not seem unreasonable to have those principles enunciated explicitly in the oath of citizenship.

My primary reservation concerning the proposed oath in Bill C-203 is that it does not require that a new citizen clearly acknowledge that there are responsibilities as well as rights and values associated with citizenship. Let there be no mistake. Let there be no mistake, for those who choose to settle in Canada, Canadian citizenship is a privilege. It allows freedom, democracy, security, prosperity and education, among so many other opportunities.

In addition, Canadian citizenship means more than a technical designation of nationality. It is also about responsibility. Each and every citizen, whether new to Canada or born here, has a duty to conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with Canadian values and the concepts outlined in the proposed oath we are debating today.

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot has acknowledged both in committee and in debate in the House that his purpose in framing the oath in Bill C-203 is to specifically reference the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He stated earlier in debate that the five principles in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the law above the laws of Parliament and, indeed, they are in our constitution now. He stated that he tried to capture in the five principles of the charter the ultimate law that governs being Canadian.

I will leave it to others to debate the specific charter references in the proposed oath of citizenship. There are many who still have reservations concerning the establishment and interpretation of our charter. However, irrespective of one's view of the charter, the oath proposed in Bill C-203 references well established and shared values among Canadians which may be respected in their included context here.

The hon. member stated in debate that he believes the responsibilities of being a Canadian citizen are encompassed by the term “solemn trust to uphold these five principles” in his proposed oath. It is important to spell out those responsibilities rather than let them be implied. If Bill C-203 were votable, I would be proposing that the oath be reworded to include something like the following statements.

I pledge allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty the Queen as I take my place among Canadians, a people united by five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law. I solemnly promise to respect these rights and freedoms and to uphold Canada's democratic values as I fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

I have blended the proposed oaths in Bill C-203 and Bill C-18 in the interests of incorporating the best elements of each suggestion.

I would further note that in Saskatchewan the citizenship ceremony officials take great pride in the ceremonies held to welcome new citizens. I suggest that, with their experience and expertise on the subject, such officiants may be able to contribute to the discussion of what should be included in a meaningful citizenship oath.

I would like to conclude my remarks by discussing the nature and responsibilities of citizenship as seen through the eyes of others. I recently found passages from an old banking newsletter published in 1966 that summarized nicely the spirit of citizenship in Canada. These passages are as relevant today as when first published nearly 40 years ago. I will paraphrase the thoughts as follows.

Good citizenship can be simple if Canadians will think of it as not something merely legal or intellectual, but something transcending law and reason, something deeply felt, deeply believed, dominant even in our dreams. Our citizenship stirs us to enjoy and contribute to the best sort of society yet offered to people who are advancing together in search of equality of life. This is time to read the record and find our citizenship 10 times more meaningful than it has ever been before. Having made ourselves sovereign as a nation, we must now behave intelligently as citizens. A citizen is not only an individual but a member of a family--

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition from constituents in Jansen, Guernsey, Lanigan and Drake, Saskatchewan calling on Parliament to use common sense and not allocate tax dollars for abortions.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about and why it has been brought forward this today. We have heard all afternoon that the contrast is glaring and that people are receiving deductions for all sorts of circumstances. People who are truly disabled and really need assistance are only asking for a tax break. They are not asking for any money. They are not asking for new ramps for their wheelchairs.

Yes, I do believe there is a glaring difference.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no I am not, but I thank the hon. member for making me aware of that.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate today on the supply day motion concerning the disability tax credit.

By this motion, the House is asked to call upon the government to “level the playing field” for Canadians with disabilities. It is considered that such leveling of the playing field would be achieved if the government were to act on the unanimous recommendations of the committee report, “Getting It Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit” and by this motion the government is so directed.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River.

To get back to the report, the government is particularly directed to act on the committee report recommendations concerning eligibility requirements for the disability tax credit. At the same time, the government is asked to withdraw proposed changes to this credit that were released by the hon. Minister of Finance on August 30.

As the House already heard this afternoon, 106,000 Canadians with disabilities have already been affected by these changes after finding out that they were no longer automatically eligible and would have to reapply for a credit that they had been receiving for years. Given the concerns that have been expressed by various groups potentially affected by these changes, the views of the hon. Minister of Finance are particularly anticipated during the course of the debate.

I first want to commend the hon. members of the New Democratic Party for bringing this motion before the House. It would be preferable to be debating the actual proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act since, as many have noted, the House legislative agenda appears thin at this time. However in the absence of a debate on the actual legislation, a debate such as today's is particularly important and timely.

Disabled Canadians routinely face challenges that able-bodied people do not have to consider in their everyday lives. In many cases meeting those challenges means extra effort, extra time and extra expenses. The disability tax credit helped to offset a small portion of those expenses by providing a tax break to disabled Canadians.

Under the changes to the disability tax credit, even that small bit of relief has been removed for many Canadians who no longer are eligible for the credit even though their disability has not changed or lessened in any way.

The range of mental and physical afflictions Canadians deal with on a daily basis is staggering and often cannot be adequately described on a standardized form, as is required to be eligible for the disability tax credit. Some disabilities are more of a burden than others and we must recognize that some people are more challenged than others. With fewer people receiving tax savings through this disability tax credit, the government is punishing the people who need the most help, and that is a tragedy.

One example that comes to mind is a gentleman who contacted my riding office after he became ineligible for the disability tax credit. This man lost part of his leg and uses an artificial one to help him get around. Because he is able to move at least 50 metres using his prosthesis, which is counted as a device, the gentleman is no longer eligible for the tax credit that he had been receiving for the past 14 years. According to the government, he is no longer disabled enough to receive the credit. How absolutely ridiculous when in fact the opposite is true.

The gentleman feels he is becoming more disabled as his age increases and his body begins its natural decline. He also feels let down by the system that is essentially penalizing him for taking advantage of the prosthetic technology that allows him to improve his mobility.

The disability tax credit is refused to people who are able to meet performance criteria with help from a device, such as my constituent's prosthetic limb. The irony is that disabled persons often spend their own money on devices that will in turn allow them enough functionality to make them ineligible for the disability tax credit.

Another constituent, who is legally blind, expressed her frustration with having to fight to have her tax credit eligibility reinstated after she was informed she no longer qualified. Again, there was no miracle as far as her eyesight was concerned. Her disability was as real as it always was, just not in the eyes of the government.

After many visits to specialists, this constituent was able to prove her disability but felt the process was time consuming, insulting, annoying and frustrating. She says she understands there must be checks and balances in place to avoid fraud but feels the disability tax credit is now too restrictive and forces the disabled to go to too much effort to prove their condition.

Finally, I would like to share a part of a letter I received from Canadian arthritis patients alliance members, Anne Dooley and Joy Tappin, with whom I met to discuss the concerns I had heard about the disability tax credit and how it affected disabled Canadians.

The letter states that four million Canadians battle arthritis and the number is growing. In Saskatchewan, there are 140,000 people with arthritis, 1,000 of them children.

It goes on to say that arthritis can have a devastating effect on individuals, families and communities. It is the biggest cause of long term disability in Canada and costs taxpayers $17.8 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. However the physical and socio-economic costs to the men, women and children with disabling arthritis and the families that care for them is most felt at home.

It goes on to say that the burden can be awful. To help offset some care costs, the Disability Tax Credit to a maximum amount of approximately $960 a year was put into place. However a review by Canada Customs and Revenue of 106,000 individuals receiving the tax credit, denied one-third of claims for 2001. This was because a more restrictive Disability Tax Credit Certificate, Form T2201, had been put into place even though the criteria for eligibility had not substantively changed since 1991. This affected all disabled individuals, not just those with arthritis.

Further it says that consultations between CCRA, medical professional associations and disabled groups during the summer of 2002 produced recommendations that have been ignored by CCRA. A far more restrictive Form T2201 has been drafted and the Department of Finance proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to further tighten eligibility. The people who need this money, in most case, haven't the funds or the strength to appeal.

The recommendations that were referred to in the letter came from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities, which tabled a report on March 14 on the government's handling of the disability tax credit eligibility review.

The report, which featured 16 recommendations, including an apology to the 106,000 Canadians who were informed of their ineligibility by way of an ill-worded letter, is not supportive of the government's proposed disability tax credits or the way the eligibility review has been conducted. So far the government has ignored the unanimous recommendations of the report.

Disabilities affect many Canadians. We must do our best to ensure that they are not any more disadvantaged than they already are. In the case of the disability tax credit, disabled Canadians are not asking for any additional consideration or benefit. They simply ask that the tax credit, which has been in place for many years, be left alone.