Lynne Yelich

[TD Canada Trust Scholarship, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Blackstrap have many outstanding young individuals in their midst. Today I would like to take a moment to recognize high school graduates who are making a difference in their communities.

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with Elizabeth Pryor from Hawardern who attends Loreburn High School and is one of the 20 recipients of the TD Canada Trust Scholarship for outstanding community leadership.

This spring, several students from Blackstrap travelled to Ottawa to be honoured for their accomplishments back home. I was honoured to meet with Cosanna Preston, Daniel Ramage, Louis-Philippe Dubois and Uliana Kojalianko who were just a part of the Forum for Young Canadians. Uliana was on the Hill along with Jamie Dzikowski to be honoured for the Rotary Club's adventure in citizenship program.

It is indeed a pleasure to see so many young people having such a positive impact on the community.

I would like to congratulate these honourees along with the numerous others from across Canada for their hard work and dedication to education.

[Croatian Fraternal Union, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I call on all members to welcome Bernard Luketich, president of the Croatian Fraternal Union of America, North America's largest organization representing Canadians and Americans of Croatian descent.

Established in 1894 with over 100,000 current members, the CFU provided accident and life insurance for Croatian immigrants who worked in the most dangerous jobs under hazardous conditions when social supports did not exist.

During both world wars CFU members served in the Canadian and American armed forces, with many paying the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and democracy. The CFU passionately supported the allied war effort through donations, bond drives, blood donations and other activities.

Today there are hundreds of CFU lodges and centres across North America promoting cultural and social events, folklore, sport activities, scholarship programs and other fraternal activities.

I congratulate the CFU on its long and distinguished history, and I wish it continued success in its second century of fraternalism.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why does the minister not want to help true legitimate refugees?

Seventy two per cent of our refugee claimants come through the United States. By declaring the U.S. as a safe third country and following the United Nations guidelines on refugees, we could make it easier for those in camps and dire straits to get into Canada. Why is the minister so opposed to helping these people in dire straits?

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen with today's softwood disaster that the government's ability to make deals with the U.S. is non-existent. Why then do we have to wait for another theoretical deal on refugee claimants?

The government could begin today by declaring the U.S. as a safe third country. This would help stop asylum shopping, something the Liberal chair of the immigration committee is concerned about. It would open the way for many more legitimate refugee claims, something the Alliance is concerned about.

Why do we have to wait? Why will the government not act right now?

[Correctional Service Canada, March 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is high time the Liberal government acted to make our communities safer and put resources into the apprehension of parole violators and escaped prisoners.

Only one province has put together a special squad of police officers to catch violent offenders who have contravened their parole or, worse, escaped from correctional facilities. The federal government needs to put resources, money and personnel into catching these offenders.

Experts tell us that there are almost 1,000 escaped prisoners, parole violators and other unlawfully at large federal offenders on our streets at any one time. Last month in Manitoba a parole violator shot RCMP Constable Mike Templeton. I urge the government to follow the lead of Ontario and invest in a marshal style police effort that hunts down and arrests violent repeat offenders.

Despite the rhetoric of the solicitor general, parole violators are a threat to the safety of Canadians. CPIC alone will not do the job.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on a concern I have with the proposed air security surcharge. The Liberals' Bill C-49 introduces an air travel tax of $24 and is set to become effective April 1. As a person who travels frequently, I find this tax outrageous. As a parliamentarian, I find it unnecessary.

On the six month anniversary of the attacks on America and the World Trade Center it is evident that the world is still mourning. As well we see that what happened just a short six months ago is still fresh in our minds. It was these acts that prompted the government, my colleagues and myself to take a closer look at the security measures that we take in this country.

When our neighbour is this vulnerable a target for terrorism, then we have to ask how safe we are. I believe, as do my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, that we need heightened airport security, but to gouge Canadian travellers with this new tax is to wrongly take advantage of their fears and their mourning.

The tax as it stands now will hurt Canadian travellers and ultimately the companies that supply this travel to Canadians. Surely the government would know better than to implement a tax that will destroy smaller air carriers and limit the choices of travelling Canadians. Surely common sense would prevail.

I believe that if one has the courage to stand and criticize someone's ideas, then one must be prepared to give a better solution. The Canadian Alliance, and specifically my colleague the member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, has brought forth a number of alternatives and improvements to this tax.

The first suggestion, and probably the most important, is that air travellers should contribute to the cost of improved airport security but they should not bear the total weight of these new improvements.

The approach taken by the United States is to have air passengers pay for part but not all of the cost of aviation security. A fee of $2.50 per flight to a maximum of $5 per day is a much more reasonable and workable fee.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations agreed unanimously that having the travelling public pay for 100% of improved airport security would be an exorbitant tax and would be unfair, yet this is exactly what has happened.

Mark Hill, the vice president of WestJet was quoted as saying “Once the tax is implemented, we believe that traffic will evaporate off the short haul routes. Once the traffic goes, we will have to back out of some of our short haul flying. Once that begins, the genie is out of the bottle and it is very hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle once that happens”.

These comments scare me. They scare me because they affect my constituents directly.

Saskatoon airport services most of my constituents. Its flights service travellers primarily to Winnipeg, Calgary, Prince Albert and Regina. These are all short haul flights. If this tax dissuades short haul flights, then it will destroy the business that is fundamental to the Saskatoon airport. This means not only the loss of valuable resources for my constituents but also the loss of jobs and a valuable part of the Saskatchewan economy.

Doug Schmidt, a WestJet pilot who originated from my area, was in Ottawa recently. As a concerned pilot he presented a petition to the Canadian Alliance opposition critic for transport to be tabled in the House of Commons on behalf of the WestJet pilots, flight attendants and fellow employees.

The petition urges the government to scrap the currently proposed system and replace it with one that is fair and equitable. The petition suggests that a percentage of airfare based formula would be far more fair to all air carriers, air travellers and supportive to airport communities.

The petition also outlined some very stark examples of what is wrong with the tax. On a $57 one way ticket between Edmonton and Calgary, a flat rate of $12 will represent more than a 20% increase in price for travellers. This increase in price could very realistically result in the removal of this short haul flight. However the same $12 fee on a $319 fare from Moncton to Vancouver will represent only a 4% increase. This increase is reasonable for long haul flights. This example clearly shows the discrepancy and the unfairness of the tax.

Mr. Schmidt and his co-workers brought forth this petition because they feel strongly about the company that they work for. They believe in their company. It is also driven from a fear that this tax will destroy this company which is largely based on short haul flights.

I was overwhelmed by the effort made by WestJet employees to save their company. I was even more overwhelmed when at a recent community event constituents rallied to sign the petition and show their support for the short haul flights. These constituents wanted to express personally the value that these short haul carriers have in their lives.

The service provided by WestJet and similar companies, and the affordable rates that they provide, are what Canadians have come to expect. It is what they deserve. Bill C-49 will surely take this away from them. How can we stand by and let this happen?

The Saskatchewan government has also been very vocal about questioning this new tax. Saskatchewan's own highways and transportation minister was quoted as saying that the Saskatchewan government fully supports enhanced security, but it is adding its voice to the growing number of others questioning the federal government's decision to beef up national and international airline security at the expense of local airports and short haul passengers.

I support my provincial government in this line of reasoning. It was clear the government was not willing to help Saskatchewan farmers with this budget, but I am surprised that it would add to this disgrace by destroying our air industry.

David Eckmire, chair of the Air Services Group, said the fee will generate $5 million annually from travellers using the Saskatoon airport which almost equals the airport's entire operating budget.

Many within the airline industry view this new airport security tax as a tax grab. It has not gone unnoticed that the money will go into the general revenues of the federal government and not a special security fund. My airport of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan will pay in taxes what is equal to its operating budget and in the end it will be stashed away into a federal reserve, benefiting no one. Tell me, where is the common sense?

This tax will be extremely detrimental to smaller communities, communities that are in my riding of Blackstrap.

I had mentioned earlier the need for the government to apply common sense to the airport security tax. Now I am going to put forth some common sense statements made in several of the presentations to the finance and transport committees.

Mark Hill, vice president of WestJet, suggested that a flat fee would be simpler to administer. This would mean that the tax would be based on a percentage of the fare and not a head tax. This system would be far less detrimental to short haul flights. Mr. Hill went on to tell the finance committee that this tax will be an auditing nightmare for airlines to try and figure out who owes what to whom and when.

Mr. J. Clifford Mackay of the Air Transport Association of Canada said “The implementation of this new tax or charge is frankly extremely complex. We have spent hundreds of hours trying to figure out how to do this. It is not going to be easy”.

Randy Williams, the president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, said “This tax will hurt an industry still recovering from the September 11 terrorist activities and the economic slowdown”. He went on to say that the travelling public does not support this tax.

These are very important points. They illustrate quite clearly that the government ignored the work in committee, the airline industry and the travelling public when it introduced Bill C-49.

This sort of separation between the people and the government is what has caused so much distrust and resentment for the political process. If we want to restore the belief of Canadians that their government is working for them and not against them, then we need to start listening to these common sense statements.

The government ignored them. I am asking members of the House from all parties to think carefully about why they are here. I want them to consider what is best for their constituents and what is necessary for a healthy airline industry in Canada. I am certain when they have done this that all members will vote against the implementation of this tax and they will do so with a clear conscience.

[Business of Supply, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 296. I thank my colleague, the member for St. Albert, for bringing much needed attention to this matter.

To emphasize the importance of the motion I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from the Hill Times . The paragraphs in this article were written by Bill Curry, entitled “Parliament 'abandoned' constitutional responsibility”.

Bob Marleau, the former top House bureaucrat and an expert on Parliament, says MPs have “almost abandoned” their constitutional duties to review how government spends money, a job that is considered one of the central tenets of Parliamentary democracy.

“The last fundamental review of the supply process was in 1968 and it really needs to be revitalized, Parliamentarians are losing interest,” he told the Hill Times.

“The House of Commons has two basic roles, and that is to pass legislation and supply [review and approve government spending]. It has, in my view, over-focused on legislation in the last 25 years and almost abandoned its constitutional responsibility on supply. Now that's pretty strong for me [to say].”

Motion No. 296 is concerned with the fundamental right that is unique to democracy: government accountability. In the throne speech the government clearly indicated the need for parliamentary reform and indeed, mentioned the need for reform to the estimates process. Increased scrutiny is certainly much needed in this area. The time has come to give all parliamentarians an added degree of power in reviewing the estimates process.

Many people like to cite and compare the importance of the motion to parenting and disciplining. Members should imagine a parent who gives a child lots of money and freedom, allowing the child to do whatever the child wants. This parent puts minimal restrictions on what is appropriate for the child. During adolescence this child probably would think that this particular parent is amazing. This parent more than likely would become popular with the child and also would be the envy of many of the child's friends.

However, when the child is out on his or her own and has to learn how to handle money in a responsible fashion and also hold down a job, he or she would eventually realize that the parent who was once thought of as being cool or the most amazing person in the entire world, because the parent was so generous or easy-going, was not really doing them any favours as a child. If a parent is not responsible or held accountable for actions in the upbringing of the child, the child suffers in the long run.

This example makes an obvious connection to government spending habits. The government will often put money into certain social programs for the simple purpose of gaining public support. However, in doing so, it is not really doing society any favours because another program is likely suffering the consequences of cutbacks in an attempt to compensate for the area receiving public support.

This happens all too often, and is often not recognized until it is too late. For example, we have all repeatedly heard about the government reducing the debt by $36 billion from its peak level. This looks to be quite impressive at first glance, however upon looking deeper into the matter we also find that the employment insurance fund was robbed of $36 billion during the same fiscal period. The EI fund is not a piggy bank into which the government can dip in attempts to gain public support.

It is for reasons such as this that all members of parliament, on behalf of the citizens of Canada, deserve increased scrutiny into the estimates process. Motion No. 296 goes a long way toward putting the power back where it belongs. The citizens of Canada contribute equally nationwide to fund government programs and these people all deserve a representative acting on their behalf to ensure that their money would go to the most productive uses possible.

These people work hard and their money is not intended to fund multibillion dollar popularity contests. It is in this light that the standing orders must be amended to create a standing committee on the estimates with a mandate to monitor and review the estimates and supply process, along with other related matters. It is time for the government to be held accountable for its actions and for the abuse of Canadians' money to come to a halt.

In my personal experiences on the job, which I am sure parallel those of a lot of members, I repeatedly hear from constituents who are unhappy and frustrated with the way their money is being handled at the government level. They are unable to receive benefits from programs they have been paying into all their lives often with little or ambiguous reasons as to why their claims were denied. At the same time they are hearing in the news that the government has been dipping into the EI fund to pay down the debt. As one can imagine, this is very frustrating for many people.

These people pay into the fund on the assumption that they will be assisted when assistance is most needed. However when they are denied access to these programs they cannot help but feel that all their work has been in vain. These programs were established for the benefit of the citizens of Canada, not to benefit the government.

I tell these people that I will look further into the spending habits of the government and hold it accountable for its actions. However I am presently unable to effectively do this as a member of the official opposition.

The report brought forth by the member for St. Albert is entitled “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”. However the report is also known as the Catterall-Williams report. The government House leader played a major role in the writing and direction of this report.

Similarly the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific was also a member of the committee that put this report together. It would be nothing less than hypocritical for these two prominent members of the government to vote against this motion, a motion which they both endorsed and helped to write.

The sponsor of this motion is the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He is also the co-author of this report. He strongly believes that the adoption of the motion would go a long way to return the ability to scrutinize spending back to parliamentarians.

One of the main reasons that parliament exists is to grant supply to the crown. Therefore it seems ridiculous that all parliamentarians do not presently possess the ability to make changes and have a real impact on the estimates process. We must put the power back where it belongs.

This report must not be ignored. It encompasses the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens that we were all elected to uphold. We must not turn our backs on the duty and privilege that the citizens of Canada have bestowed upon us. I strongly urge members to take this motion seriously and to give it the attention and consideration that it so obviously deserves.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to endangered species and to my support for the general concept of a federal species at risk bill. Over 80% of Canadians are concerned about species at risk and support efforts to prevent species from becoming extinct.

I am part of that 80%. My home province of Saskatchewan signed on to the concept of federal species at risk legislation several years ago. The plan it signed on to was a complementary and co-operative process with the provinces. However today I stand before the House as a concerned member of parliament. I represent a concerned province and concerned constituents.

The proposed legislation goes far beyond the intent of the accord signed by the provinces and the federal government in the late 1990s. Saskatchewan like many other provinces has serious concerns about the direction in which this species at risk legislation is headed.

I hope that through talking about Saskatchewan's experience with this type of legislation it would be clear to all members of the House how important co-operation is. This legislation cannot be effective without co-operation.

I strongly oppose the clause in Bill C-5 that allows the minister entirely, at his own discretion and without any criteria, negotiation or accountability, to impose federal law on provincial jurisdiction. This will not facilitate the co-operation about which I have spoken extensively. That is wrong. It will bring confrontation and will ultimately be unworkable. The species at risk in my province and my country deserve better than a piece of ineffective legislation.

I understand the necessity of the federal species at risk legislation. We have seen the importance of it when the federal government passed the Migratory Birds Convention Act in 1994, but we need to have a balance between federal and provincial jurisdictions to meet the two extremes of each power. There needs to be negotiation with the provinces.

I strongly encourage the government to look at Bill C-5 on the aspect of jurisdiction. The bill should not be passed until this key aspect has been considered.

I spoke briefly about this topic when I was in the House yesterday and today I need to reiterate what I said then. The way in which Bill C-5 would delegate jurisdiction between the federal and provincial levels encourages confrontation rather than co-operation with the provinces.

Bill C-5 would give the federal government's Minister of the Environment the power to impose its laws on provincial lands completely at the discretion of the minister. However it may be necessary to give the federal government some measure of power to impose its laws on provinces that are not behaving with an adequate respect for these species, but using discretion as a measure of power given to the federal minister is hopelessly vague. It is unfair to leave decisions falling into the realm of jurisdiction up to the discretion of one person.

In our criminal justice system the decision on whether or not to convict someone of a criminal offence lies in the hands and discretion of twelve people and not one. When a decision such as this one is left up to discretion we open the door to one's moral, ethical and even religious dispositions to come into the mix. This is something sure to spark endless debate.

We need strict guidelines on when the federal government can impose its laws on the provinces so that the provinces and the landowners know what to expect in terms of interference from the federal level.

Since Bill C-5 leaves the power of the federal government completely at the discretion of the minister responsible, landowners do not know if or when the federal government can or will impose its laws on provincial lands. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust.

The federal government must be responsible for ensuring that it consult and co-operate with the provinces when making these considerations.

Somewhat ironically, in a 1999 independent study commissioned by the federal government, a review of national accord gap analysis, nine out of the twelve provinces and territories scored higher than the federal government regarding wildlife conservation. In fact, the federal government scored 44% on the test whereas all of the prairie provinces scored in the top five with marks ranging from 64% in British Columbia to 85% in Alberta.

How can one not see the irony in this? Under these conditions which are found in a study commissioned by the federal government itself, it still insists that federal wildlife officials be allowed to peer over the shoulder of its provincial counterparts to ensure that they are doing their jobs. The provinces are obviously doing a better job of wildlife conservation than the federal government.

Why does Bill C-5 not recognize the federal government's own shortcomings in this area? Rather, it adopts an arrogant attitude ensuring a dominating and coercive attitude toward the provinces. Each province and territory of Canada is different in regard to the species that inhabit their boundaries. This is why legislation protecting endangered species, such as Bill C-5, should encourage feedback and co-operation with the provinces.

Similarly, officials from the government of Saskatchewan expressed concerns in a number of areas covered in Bill C-5.

First, they are of the impression that it does not adequately allow for provinces to take an ecosystem approach. What is good for one species in the grasslands may not be good for another species inhabiting the same environment. Bill C-5 is fairly narrow-minded. It does not adequately allow for the provinces to take a diverse and open-minded perspective toward wildlife conservation.

Second, the government of Saskatchewan is worried that it does not have the adequate resources or the timeframe to meet all of the provincial requirements outlined in the bill.

Moreover, Bill C-5 is diverging from the spirit of the national accord for the protection of species at risk signed in 1996 by most provincial and territorial ministers responsible for wildlife and by the federal government. The accord lays out a variety of commitments to protect species at risk. By its terms, the governments recognize that intergovernmental co-operation is crucial to the conservation and protection of species at risk, that the governments must play a leadership role in complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation, regulations, policies and programs.

[2002 Winter Olympics, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's Olympic medallists. In particular, I congratulate the women of Canada's Olympic team.

The Salt Lake City Olympics has been a great success for Canadian competitors in women's disciplines. Cindy Klassen won our first medal in 3,000 metre long track speed skating. Veronica Brenner and Deidra Dionne shared the podium in the women's aerials. The women's hockey team is on track for either silver or gold. Again, these women have made history in Canada because they are world class athletes.

Beckie Scott became the first Canadian to win an Olympic medal in nordic skiing, and originally from my own riding of Blackstrap, Catriona LeMay Doan became the first Canadian athlete to defend her Olympic gold in the same individual event.

There have been some disappointments in these Olympics and I personally believe we need to pay more attention to amateur sport in this country, but the victories have been glorious and we should make sure we give all the athletes our heartfelt thanks for representing our country with such class.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know first-hand the need for effective species at risk legislation. I am a resident of Saskatchewan, a province that has been converted from a rich grassland ecosystem with an abundance and diversity of wildlife species to one of the most modified landscapes in North America.

Saskatchewan has suffered the loss of more than 40 million acres of natural landscape. The statistics are beyond alarming. Some 75% of native grasslands are gone; 80% of the aspen parkland is lost; 50% of wetlands are gone; and 20% of our native plants are listed as rare and are disappearing at an alarming rate.

Progress in alleviating the problem has been the result of a joint effort between legislators and landowners. Local communities such as Wadena and Chaplin have capitalized on tourism opportunities promoting the importance of local wetlands.

The key to this is the people of Saskatchewan who took enough pride in their environment to protect and promote it. For the species at risk act to be effective we therefore need co-operation with the provinces. The bill before us would give the federal government power to impose its laws on provincial lands. To make matters worse, the process would be left to the minister's discretion. That is too much uncertainty for landowners.

There are landowners and farmers in my community who have resentment and distrust for the government regarding Bill C-5. The government is not getting off on the right foot when these are the initial reactions to its legislation.

Saskatchewan has an endangered species legislation. It is based on co-operation and the premise that endangered species exist on private land because of landowners and not in spite of them.

Landowners appreciate wildlife and make a point of preserving habitat on their land. They often do this at their own expense. Saskatchewan's legislation was an entirely co-operative effort with the agricultural community. It was designed to assist and reward landowners with species at risk on their land. Co-operation and compensation are key elements.