Elsie Wayne

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kelowna.

Earlier today, demonstrating the Prime Minister's truly heroic powers of restraint, the government forced closure on government business No. 2, the reinstatement of bills from the previous session. It took all of six days for the new Prime Minister to use the most blunt instruments in the parliamentary arsenal. Closure and time allocation are not standard procedures of the House. They should be our last resort, not our first response.

This chamber was designed as a place to debate the nation's business for all Canadians, a place to discuss current events and public policy. When we limit that debate, we undermine the institution of Parliament and the purposes for which it stands.

For this reason alone, closure and time allocation should not be used just at the whim of the government House leader. They must be exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. In seeking closure, the government has shown that it will continue to conduct itself as it has for the past 10 years.

In his long career the Prime Minister has personally supported the use of time allocation on 75 different occasions and the use of closure on 10 others. Say what we may, at least he is consistent, I will say that for him.

There is another great irony about the motion for closure the House passed this morning. The purpose of that motion was to limit debate on a motion that would itself limit the debate on bills before the House. By limiting the debate on government business No. 2, the government has limited debate on a series of bills on a wide range of important issues. This motion is one which deserves significant debate. Its only function is to bring back from the dead legislation of the Chrétien government. Its only purpose is to turn back the clock and continue the work the Prime Minister began as minister of finance and the member for LaSalle—Émard.

There are those, perhaps even the Prime Minister himself, who would have us believe that we are in the midst of a new era. They would tell us that there is a new government with a new vision and a new agenda. They would stand here in this great place and say that what has just passed is passed. Yet many of those who would say this and undoubtedly much more, stood today to resurrect the legislation of the last session. Their new vision looks strangely like the old vision.

I think all members of the House will recall the election campaign run by the Prime Minister and his predecessor. I think we all recall with some fondness the television commercial in which Prime Minister Chrétien walked arm in arm with his then minister of finance, our current Prime Minister.

Their joint exploits go back much further. My colleagues will certainly recall that it was the current Prime Minister who was the principal architect of the Liberal red book in 1993. He was then named the second most powerful person in cabinet and was instrumental in putting that policy in place.

When the Sea King replacement was cancelled, this Prime Minister was there. When the funding for health care was slashed, this Prime Minister was there. When the billion dollar boondoggle took place at HRDC, and we are going to hear a whole lot more about that, this Prime Minister was there. When the gun registry went over budget by about a billion dollars, this Prime Minister was there.

The Prime Minister is not just a product of the previous administration, he was the previous administration. He was and clearly remains a loyal servant of the Chrétien government. That record is his record.

With the Liberal legacy left lifeless, the Prime Minister is using every tool he has to bring it back. He is fighting to bring back--and I cannot believe this--a bill that would decriminalize marijuana and put our children at risk. I worked for many years with children to whom a man gave marijuana when they were in high school. I worked to take them out of the alleyway. I got them into the church in which I was working. I bought them hot dogs and pop. I told them not to fight with their moms and dads for money to pay that man in the alleyway, which is what they were doing. In the end, there were 23 children.

Just five years ago on Christmas eve my doorbell rang. A young gentleman standing at the door said, “Hi, Mrs. Wayne, do you remember me?” I said that he looked familiar and asked him if he was Tony. It was Tony. His mom and dad were out in the car. They wanted Tony to thank me that night for taking him out of the alleyway. When I asked him what he was doing he told me he was a draftsman in Toronto and he said that if I had not taken him out of the alleyway, he would still be there, on cocaine.

I have done research in Berkeley University with regard to marijuana. We should not decriminalize marijuana. We should not tell young people it is all right to have five grams. We should not do any of that, because when we do, we are telling them it is all right to use it, and it is not all right to use it.

The Prime Minister is fighting to bring back a bill that would allow embryonic stem cell research. Once again let me say that we have discussed this. It is wrong.

He is fighting to bring back a bill that does not stop the threat of child pornography. I cannot believe we are doing that in Canada.

He is fighting to force changes to our riding boundaries so that he can call another early election. I want to say that we looked into this. There should not be an election until next fall. Those boundaries are not supposed to come into effect until August. Let me say to every member of the Liberal government that when this goes through, every Canadian will be looking at them and asking why they forced this through at this time. They will be saying, “What are the Liberals afraid of in the next election if they wait until the fall?”

In just over 10 years we will have had four elections: in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004. On average that is every two and a half years. Look at the cost of it to the taxpayers of this country. In the decade before the 1993 election, there were two elections, in 1984 and in 1988. There were four years between them. The only excuse for having so many elections in such a short period of time would be if we had a series of minority governments.

I am sharing my time with my colleague from Kelowna, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that when I look at what is happening today, having been here since 1993, I am really shocked and disappointed. I, like many others, was looking for positive change. Positive change is not what we have received. It is not positive change. Bringing back and adopting these bills is not positive change. It is the same bloody thing all over again, which we have had to put up with since 1993. I do not see us doing anything positive for the people of Canada.

[Veterans Affairs, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs should just think about this. The wives of all those veterans who died before September 1, 1990 are home. I hear from them every day. They say, “Please, please I can't stay in my home unless I get that VIP”.

When will the government, when will the minister, get up in the House and say that all veterans' widows are equal? Will it be today or will it be tomorrow?

[Veterans Affairs, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs has extended the VIP coverage to those widows whose veteran husbands died after September 1, 1990. I cannot believe that anyone sitting in the House does not want to treat those veterans' widows. While this change increased the number of widows who receive coverage, it did not extend the VIP benefits to all our veterans' widows.

We now have two classes of widows, some covered and many not, simply on the basis of when--

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Members in the House, particularly those on the government side, must realize that these widows must be treated equally and it must be done right away because every other day we are losing another one.

Extra beds must be put in veterans hospitals because we are getting calls everyday. I mean it. Hundreds and hundreds of veterans do not have anyone to look after them. They fought for each and every one of us and we owe it to them to make them number one. That should be done right away.

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

I thank my colleague for that comment.

We had CMHC and we were building homes for seniors and others but the government took away all the money and cut out CMHC. As the hon. member said, there is a need for us to look after all our seniors.

This coming of age will force significant changes in how government operates in a wide range of areas from, as he has stated, affordable housing to transportation and from tax policy to national security.

And yet, despite these powerful warnings, the Government of Canada has done horribly little to prepare itself. The Speech from the Throne failed to make seniors and seniors' issues a priority. That was a grave mistake.

For the past two years I have repeatedly called on both the current Prime Minister and his predecessor to name a cabinet minister specifically responsible for seniors. After all, do we not have a Secretary of State for Youth? Can we not agree that our seniors are facing challenges unlike those facing any other age group?

I admit that I was greatly disappointed when the new Prime Minister ignored the advice and failed to name a seniors minister. I was disappointed but not surprised. Every day we waste is a day less that we have to prepare.

We are now faced with a huge challenge that must be addressed within a progressively shortening timeline. If we do not overhaul the institutions of government, they will be overwhelmed.

Let me make clear that the coming of age is not a bad thing. I know all about it. I am of the coming of age. It goes without saying that we should celebrate the fact that more Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. We should be proud that our senior citizens are among the most active in the world and that they continue to make a significant contribution to our country in a broad range of areas. I have often said that when speaking about our senior citizens we should put more emphasis on the word “citizen” and less on the word “senior”.

Two months ago the Prime Minister offered some vague comments about no commitments, about eliminating mandatory retirement ages. The time has come for us to recognize that mandatory retirement is discrimination, plain and simple.

Countless Canadians remain both physically and mentally capable of doing the same job at age 70 that they did at age 30. We live in a free country that respects free markets yet, in some cases, we order our citizens to retire, and that is wrong. I believe that retirement should be left to the individual choice in as many cases as possible. The only criterion that should matter is the employee's ability, not the employee's age.

In order to fully appreciate our new reality we must understand its root causes. Canadians are living, as I stated, longer, healthier lives because we have become a much healthier society. Not only have we made great strides in the fields of medical science, we now place greater emphasis on preventative medicines. Moreover, we have improved our lifestyles with better nutrition and more exercise.

Back when I was mayor of Saint John, I was a proud proponent of the participaction program. In fact, I was invited up here to Ottawa with that participaction program when I was mayor. To this day I remain a strong supporter of the Senior Friendship Games. Both played a vital and unequalled role in the promotion of physical fitness.

In the spirit of these great programs we should have a national senior fitness program that actively encourages seniors to take up some form of physical activity.

My view has been greatly inspired by the findings of the Active Living Coalition for Older Adults and Smart Risk. These two groups have drawn a clear and unmistakable link between exercise, healthy living and injury prevention.

While we must increase our focus on the positive aspects of aging, we cannot ignore its unfortunate effects. As last year's SARS outbreak clearly demonstrated, our aging bodies can become more vulnerable to threats to our health.

Because the health concerns of someone aged 50 and older are different from those aged 50 or younger, we must ensure that our health care system reflects our changing times. This means that our health care system and institutions must put greater emphasis on long term care, home care and gerontology. It means looking at a national strategy to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs. It means looking at tax credits for families who care for an aging or sick relative in their homes. It means taking the steps necessary to ensure that seniors are able to remain independent and free to go about their lives without concerns about health and safety.

This concept is not new. After all, that was the original purpose of the veterans independence program; to ensure that our veterans could remain in their homes for as long as their health allowed.

When it comes to the VIP, I cannot believe it was not addressed in the Speech from the Throne. Here we have the widows of veterans who passed away from 1990 to today and they will get the VIP, but all those widows of veterans who passed away prior to 1990 are not getting a penny. I have stacks of letters from veterans' widows from all across the nation. They want to stay in their homes but they have been denied the VIP. It has created two classes of veterans' widows, and that must be addressed immediately.

In the fall, however, the government made the decision to cover widows, as I stated, eligible from 1990 onward.

In the past few months I have been contacted by many of these veterans' widows who are praying and begging that each and every member of Parliament on both sides of the House will make them equal. Although they spent the majority of their married adult lives caring for their families while their husbands were overseas fighting for you and me, Mr. Speaker, so we could stand here tonight in this safe place of Canada, they will not receive the benefits of the VIP.

I was really shocked that the Speech from the Throne did not refer to the VIP and to making widows equal under the program.

We had hoped that the government would treat veterans and their families equally. In its first three terms the government had to be forced into helping our merchant navy veterans. Whether it was a hunger strike on the steps of Parliament or a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court, our nation's heroes were forced to fight against the government they had fought for. From merchant navy vets to those whose pensions were mismanaged by government officials, the government's record on veterans affairs is sorely lacking and it saddens me to report that this tradition continues.

Last Friday a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of veterans used in chemical weapons testing during the second world war. These soldiers were taken from their units, brought to secret camps and gassed by the Canadian government; not some other government, but our government. The purpose was scientific research. We did to our own soldiers what the Geneva convention prohibits us from doing to enemy soldiers in time of war.

Sworn to secrecy, these brave patriots have lived with the scars of that time for more than 60 years. They deserve immediate compensation. They deserve better and I am not alone in this assessment. The Canadian Forces ombudsman has recently passed to the minister a favourable report outlining in great detail the case for compensation. I know that all members join with me in anxiously awaiting the government's response on this critical file. How we treat our veterans today is a clear sign of how we will treat our armed forces in the future.

Some years ago I participated in a NATO meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, where Lord Robertson from London, England, sent a message to all of us. He stated in a video, to all of us who were in St. Petersburg, Russia, from Canada, that he wanted us to put some money into our military where we used to be at the top with all of the others. He said we were at the lowest end of the scale and we must do something.

I listened to the speech yesterday and heard how seniors were left out. Instead of announcing a bold new program like the seniors independence program advocated by the Royal Canadian Legion, the throne speech offered false hope and bad faith.

Instead of upholding the charter and striking down mandatory retirement, the speech offered empty promises. Instead of offering a new direction for health care, the speech kept it on life support.

The government is seeking to continue its agenda of neglect. The government is preparing to extend its life by four more years. The government is trying to get Canadians to offer them a fourth chance. I am sorry, it is three strikes and it is out if it does not start doing something for seniors, the military, and the vets. It must do it now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member for the NDP speak about seniors. That was one of my main topics today because seniors were totally left out of the throne speech. Of the 23 pages in the throne speech, only about 10 words referred to seniors, and I cannot accept that.

Statistics Canada has reported that between 1991 and 2001 the number of Canadians aged 65 or older increased by 12%. Moreover, it reported that this trend will increase more rapidly as of 2011, when the oldest baby boomers reach the age of 65. It also reported that between 1991 and 2001, the number of Canadians over 80 years of age increased by 41%. If these trends continue, experts now predict that by the year 2011 there will be over 1.3 million Canadians over the age of 80. I cannot believe that the throne speech did not even refer to them or talk about them.

The effect of this coming of age will be so significant that the United Nations has described it using the term “age quake”.

Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus, or CARP, has said that the impact on society will rival that of the industrial revolution. That is what it is talking about with our seniors. Yet seniors' issues warrant only 10 words in the whole speech.

The changing demands of an aging population will dramatically affect how government will need to address the economic, social and health care needs of Canadians.

Yes, to the hon. member who just spoke. I was the mayor of Saint John for four terms so I know what the member was speaking about.

[National Defence, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a decade makes.

Ten years ago the government cancelled a contract to replace our Sea King helicopters. Ten years ago this April, two Sea King pilots were killed when their helicopter went down outside my riding of Saint John. Since that tragic day we have seen countless incidents involving the remaining Sea Kings.

Ten years ago the government said that replacements were not needed. Now, just weeks away from a federal election, the government announces that it is a priority. Like a bolt of lightning, it suddenly occurred to the Liberals that the time had come to do the right thing, yet the most important question remains unanswered. Which replacement will we have, the EH-101 or the cheapest helicopter?

Surely we owe our greatest citizens the best equipment available as they risk their lives in the defence of our country, and I ask the government to do it.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks about what has happened to Saint John, New Brunswick since the Liberals came into power 10 years ago.

We were building the ships for the navy. Now we buy new submarines, for heaven's sake, that will not even float. Over 4,000 people were working in that shipyard. Some of those men came to see me last week. They needed help to go to the United States to find work and had to leave their families back in Canada.

What does the hon. member think about his colleague who was head of the sugar caucus and we lost the sugar refinery? Another 500 workers were out of work.

What does he think about VIA Rail? When I was mayor I cut the ribbon on the brand new train station built by the federal government and it took the train away.

Saint John, New Brunswick has lost 30,000 people in 10 years. This has never happened before.

I want the hon. member to tell the House what he thinks should be done.

I heard the Prime Minister today say that he was going to do wonderful things for the Atlantic region. He was the finance minister for the last 10 years and he certainly did nothing whatsoever for the Atlantic region.

How is the hon. member going to get our 30,000 people back?

[Veterans Week, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that we can have silence and attention in the House of Commons as we give our Veterans' Week messages.

Last month, the people of Canada were again reminded of the risks of military service when two brave Canadian soldiers lost their lives while on duty in Afghanistan. Not only were we reminded of the courage of our Canadian Forces, we were reminded that those who serve under the Canadian flag are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of freedom. The families of those who have lost their sons remain in the thoughts and prayers of each and every one of us.

Our Canadian history is made complete by our proud military heritage. Since Confederation, Canadian men and women have repeatedly shown that they will offer their lives so that we, each and every one of us here today, may live in peace and security.

Some 60 years ago when I was just a little girl, my five brothers answered the call of duty. I will never forget that day. I was only five years old and my mother was ironing in the kitchen when they walked in and said, “Mum, we all signed up today”. “Oh, no,” she said, “not all of you”. They said, “Yes, Mum, we all signed up today”.

Two of my brothers were in the full force overseas through all those years of the second world war. With the fires of war burning in Europe, they volunteered their service in the name of Canada. For as long as I live, I will always remember my mother's face when they told her that day what they had done. On her face was a mixture of fear, hope, pride and concern.

Our experience was no different from that of many Canadian families. As the hon. member from the Bloc has just stated, his father went. Many of our fathers and brothers were there and, yes indeed, our sons. They left the safety of our continent for the untold dangers abroad. Many returned. Too many did not return.

There are no words to express the sorrow and grief we feel when a man or woman in uniform is taken from us. There is nothing we can say here today that will restore their place in our hearts, but we can and we must honour their memory. We honour their memory by sharing the stories of their selflessness with future generations.

As was stated by the hon. member from the Alliance, many of us have asked our veterans to go into the schools. Many of them do. In fact, I will be going into a high school on Monday to talk about what happened in the second and first world wars.

We honour their memory by sharing the stories of their selflessness with future generations. We honour their memory by worshipping those who return home.

In our memories, these great Canadians continue to serve. They serve as an example of the best our nation can offer the world. They serve as a warning for those who would challenge the safety and security of our borders. They serve as a reminder of the courage that lives in the hearts of men.

And yes, like all of my colleagues who have spoken here today, I too want the war widows to all be treated equally. I cannot believe we have not done that. I know that a lot of our colleagues on the government side agree with us. They must all be treated equally. I stand here today because of the selflessness and sacrifice of those war widows as well as that of our men and women in uniform. We enjoy the luxury of freedom because they stood to defend us in times of need.

Ladies and gentlemen in this House and members of Parliament, let us never forget them. Let us always remember them. Lest we forget.

[Veterans Affairs, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next week the people of Canada will stand in remembrance to honour our veterans, yet this government has already dishonoured our veterans by creating two separate classes of war widows. Some will get extended coverage under the VIP for life, while others will be helpless.

Given the surplus announced by the finance minister earlier this week, how can this government claim that it does not have the money to treat all war widows equally? This government will leave the worst legacy ever left in Canada if it does not treat all war widows equally.