Elsie Wayne

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I represent Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, Saint John, New Brunswick. We date back to 1783. We are not a republic. The head of state for Canada, and Saint John, is Her Majesty the Queen.

I have great respect for the hon. member who has put forward the motion. However when we take our oath, we refer to Queen Elizabeth II who is Canada's head of state. Therefore we are taking our oath to Canada.

On October 12, 2002, my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, when speaking against Bill C-219 at that time, stated his personal view that we should embrace our link to Great Britain, to our very origins and embrace the oath to the Queen. He said that we should embrace the fact that the Queen had continued in a very diligent and forthright way the lineage and connection to our country. As a Canadian, I feel very proud to continue this. When I take the oath and refer to Her Majesty, I definitely feel I am taking the oath to Canada, and I am proud to do it.

I know the hon. member is saying that he wants to add more to it. He is not saying that he wants to take that portion of the oath out. However now we are dividing it because she is our head of state.

I have met Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Her Majesty, Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, all of the royal family. I have been in their company. They love Canada. I will never forget the hurtful comments by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Queen's visit to Canada. I was so very much ashamed. I felt so saddened when he made them.

I am sure all of us will remember Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to Canada last fall and the response of Canadians to her and to Prince Philip as well. The Duke of Edinburgh was truly amazing. Whether it was in the north, the west, central Canada or the east, the response was the same, welcoming communities, warm hearts, joyful crowds and thankful Canadians.

Queen Elizabeth II, who has served in her capacity as Queen of the commonwealth for over 50 years, has served us and served us well. We all know, with her diligence, steadfastness and unwaivering hand, we are a very special country in this world. Our Queen has been a role model for Canadians and the whole world. As such, we as a nation are blessed for her leadership and guidance.

I stated earlier that I had great respect for the hon. member who has put forth this private member's bill. However I want the hon. member to know that when we take our oath, we take our oath to Canada through the head of state of Canada.

One major concern I have is that just recently we took reference to Her Majesty out of the oath for the public servants. Public servants no longer take the oath to Her Majesty. Not that the hon. member is saying this, but before we know it, we will not be taking our oath either. Some tried before in the House of Commons to take out the oath to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. I worry about that.

There are two parts of the oath, one that has existed since 1867 and the one that is being proposed today. They seem to be part of almost the same package, reaffirming essentially the same sentiment.

What is particularly important in our actions as members of Parliament is that we act in conformity with the norms that govern the behaviour of members of Parliament and that we act in a spirit that conforms with the constitution of the country.

I think there is a danger that members of either the federal or provincial houses can act in a manner that is in contempt of their oath. The important thing is we must always remember the substance of our oath of office.

As I said earlier, I represent Canada's first incorporated city, Saint John, New Brunswick and I am truly proud of that. Who worked to build this wonderful country? It was our francophone people, our anglophone people, our aboriginal people, we all built it.

It is an honour and a privilege to be a member of Parliament and sit in the House of Commons. When I look at the top of your chair, Mr. Speaker, and its insignia, some of it represents Her Majesty and some of it represents Quebec. We should be very proud to stand in the House of Commons and take our oath.

I also belong to the Monarchist League of Canada, a group which tries to ensure that Her Majesty receives the respect that she deserves.

When I read Bill C-408, I asked myself what she would say. She was just here in October. She did not receive the respect that she should have, not only from the Deputy Prime Minister but from some others. If we were to divide the oath, it would say to her that we felt she was no longer the head of state of Canada. When we take our oath, we swear allegiance to the Queen: “Faithful and bear Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”.

I cannot believe we would get into this kind of debate in the House of Commons of Canada once again. We are here to work for all our people no matter in which province they live. We have the Governor General, who represents Her Majesty. We have Lieutenant-Governors in every province in Canada who also represents Her Majesty, and they do it with dignity.

If we pass this bill, the next thing we know we will not have a Governor General representing Her Majesty. We will be looking at a different organization altogether down the road.

The hon. member who proposed the motion is an honourable member. He used to sit right across from me. He always encouraged me. In fact both those members who sit side by side always encouraged me, and I have such great respect for both of them. However I am very worried because we have some members who do not want to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. That oath of allegiance must be there. When we take that oath, we take an oath of allegiance to Canada as a whole, through Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

[Canada Airports Act, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this past week to meet with the Atlantic provinces airport authority representatives who were here in Ottawa. They are very concerned about the bill. In fact they are saying that the bill will probably kill the airports in P.E.I. and many in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and in other smaller areas across the country. They have issues in so many areas that they wish to discuss.

The transport committee should be travelling across the nation. The bill should not be dealt with until the transport committee meets in all of those areas. Does the hon. member agree that the transport committee should go and listen to the many concerns of the airport authorities out there right now? If the committee does not, Bill C-27 will kill the airports in those smaller areas.

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the member for LaSalle—Émard told journalists that both the defence minister and the minister of public works, and I quote, “don't think we can waste any more time” before replacing our Sea Kings. The member clearly implied that the delay in replacing the Sea Kings is not caused by these two ministers in charge of the file but rather some other person in the cabinet.

Seeing as how the Prime Minister is not here today, I will ask the Minister of National Defence to explain the frequent delays that have plagued the Sea King replacement process, and will he give us a firm date when our pilots--

[Petitions, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the following petition which has signatures from all across this nation. Whereas the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a single male and a single female and whereas it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and legally affirmed in Canada be preserved and protected, therefore, the undersigned petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures involving invoking section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Canada Airports Act, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.

The government has to take a look at the smaller cities, towns and villages. It has to reach out. My city of Saint John has the largest privately owned oil refinery in Canada, the Irving oil refinery. We also have the nuclear power plant, Crosby's Molasses, Moosehead Brewery and several pulp mills. Yet the government has taken the large planes out of Saint John, New Brunswick, which is the second largest city in square mileage in Canada. It took away my train. Glory be to God, I cut the ribbon for it when I was mayor six months before the 1993 election and six months after, it closed the train and took the train away from us.

We have to have the planes. In order for us to attract business into our communities we have to have all modes of transportation. Certainly we have to have our planes.

I left Saint John, New Brunswick at 11:10 this morning, which was 10:10 a.m. Ottawa time. Guess what time I arrived in Ottawa. I arrived here at 3:30 p.m. my time in Saint John, 2:30 p.m. Ottawa time. If we had the planes we used to have, I would have been here within an hour and a half.

We only have Dash 8s and I know the minister is looking at whether we will even have Dash 8s before the government is through. When that happens, the people of the country can blame the government for the way in which Saint John, New Brunswick will go and it will not be in a positive direction.

Does the minister want me to drive to Halifax? Does he want me to drive to Quebec City, to Montreal or Boston in order to get a plane to Ottawa?

Enough is enough of this. The government has to get its priorities straight. The Minister of Transport has to get his priorities straight. Everybody in this country from coast to coast needs to have transportation. They need to be able to fly. They do not want to drive.

I laughed when the minister said to me one day “Maybe you could drive to Moncton to get a plane”. They do not have them in Moncton. They have them in Dieppe.

For me to drive there takes two hours if the sun is shining, but look at this past winter. Maybe some people in the House would be glad if I was not sitting in the House every day, but there would have been no way for me to get to the House, no way for my colleagues in St. Stephen, St. George and Saint Andrews to get here, no way for my other colleague in Kings County to get here.

There is just no way this can happen. The Minister of Transport does not understand.

We are going to help our colleague over here because he is telling me he is not in favour too. If he had said he was in favour, I would not be giving him any time at all.

I look at the information I just received this week that the government is planning to cut six, eight or ten flights out of Saint John for the month of May. I may have to call on you, Mr. Speaker, to come down and drive me up because I may not be able to get to Ottawa because of the Minister of Transport. There is no way the government should be removing any flights. Every seat was taken on the flight I was on today. In fact, it was overbooked. The flights are always overbooked. There is no reason in the world to cut out any flights.

This is going to be a matter of major debate. If Sir John A. Macdonald were still living, he would make sure we not only had trains but we also had planes.

[National Defence, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, commenting on Canada's contribution to rebuilding Iraq, the defence minister told reporters “we have people that can teach policemen, help train armies”. That is welcome news if Canada has made those kinds of offers.

Will the Minister of National Defence advise the House to whom specifically he has offered Canada's services in training Iraqi police and military personnel?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with the member. I certainly do. Our researchers should take a look at that as well.

This is what I do not understand. Why have researchers not looked at this? Why are they going in the direction they are when they know, looking at all of the research that has taken place in other countries, that it does not work? Half of the frozen embryos do not even survive.

Mr. Speaker, would you freeze this young man sitting here? I would not freeze him. Glory be to God, I would not do that to anyone. I would go over and hug him. That is what I would do. I am sure the Chair would too. We would not do that to him or any of these other young people here. No, we would not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and I appeal to every one of my colleagues to defeat this bill. If they do, I will stand up and I will give them full marks. I will tell them they are wonderful. I will tell them they are great. Who knows, I might even vote for them in the next election if they do that. One never knows.

But it is a serious situation, one that brings tears to my eyes, it truly does, because I know, I have seen and I have friends who have adopted little ones. They are wonderful moms and dads. They truly are. I have to say that if this research is done with embryonic stem cells, then there will not be little ones to adopt. The hon. member on the government side says there are not enough children to adopt now and this will play a major role in making sure there are no children to adopt, that is for sure.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two grandchildren, one a young boy and one a young girl. When I look at them and think of the debate we have had, I ask myself, “How could anyone take their lives? How could anyone hurt these children?”

I want to say that in the 28 years since I became involved locally and in the House, debates like this one and the John Robin Sharpe case tug at my heart, and my family's as well. We cannot believe that here in Canada we would even allow this. These researchers are saying they want to do research. As my colleague on the government side has stated, they wanted to take 40,000 of these human cells in the United Kingdom, and none of them are successful. I wonder how many they want to take here. It will be more than 40,000.

Some day there will be no young college students in the gallery, no pages or the rest of them. Do we take their cells? No way. No way should this ever happen in the House of Commons or in Canada and no way should anyone in the House vote in favour of it.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, it is not the adult stem cell research we are opposed to but the embryonic. When they had 40,000 human cells in the U.K. and not one of them was a success, that is 40,000 children. We should just think about it.

For anybody who says there are not enough children to adopt and all of that, I have to say that we could use 40,000 more young people right here in Canada. We truly could, but we do not take their cells and say, “We are going to kill you because we are going to do research”. And then nothing happens. That is a living example right there in the United Kingdom that the embryonic stem cell research does not work. No one can prove to us, and no one will ever be able to tell me, that it does.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Yes, that is right. That is exactly what it is. There will be no negative debate on adult stem cell research, but there is a negative debate on embryonic stem cell research. We here because we believe in protecting the unborn. That is the way we have been brought up.

I cannot understand how anyone who is a doctor would be in favour of it. When the medical science is as advanced as it is in our age, there are times when we have to debate between what we can and what we should be doing, not what we are doing. That is exactly what we are doing here today.

I am truly concerned. Science and technology have given us a point of debate in this age old discussion. What we are debating today, with the amendments and the countless motions made by the members of the House related to this, is designed to regulate human reproduction, stem cell research and cloning. There is no way we should be into cloning at this point in time.

Problems have been outlined by Dr. Peter Andrews of the University of Sheffield, England who said, “Simply keeping human embryonic stem cells alive can be a challenge”. A Harvard University researcher has said, “In my view human embryonic stem cells would degrade with time”.

They can do the research they feel should be done with adult stem cells. However human embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully at any time in clinical trials. They have a lacklustre success in combating animal models of disease and carry significant risk including immune rejection and tumour formation.

We in the House have an obligation to ensure that each and every one of us has our voice heard to protect the unborn, to protect that little innocent child, to protect that little embryo that will become a child. I cannot believe we have to debate this. I have spoken two or three times on this. Living in Canada, which is known as one of the best countries in the world in which to live, I cannot believe we are allowing this to happen in the House of Commons.

If we continue in this direction we are not going to be looked upon in a positive way by other countries. We are going to be looked at in a negative way. There is a need for more voices every day to speak out against embryonic stem cell research. I honestly believe that those who are in favour of it have not done their homework. I will never, ever vote in favour, as long as I live, of allowing this to take place.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to express my feelings in the House.