Elsie Wayne

[Business of the House, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At noon today in room 200 of the West Block there will be an interfaith service to commemorate the thousands of victims killed in New York last week. The American ambassador will be there and I believe our Prime Minister will be there as well. I know that many members want to be there but we find it difficult when the House is in session.

I therefore ask, in consultation with all House leaders in the House today and with their concurrence, for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That at 11.30 today the House suspend until 1.30 and that the House sit from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. this day to consider Government Orders.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. As was stated earlier by our leader, there is an article in the Globe and Mail which says what the colonels and the generals have been stating. It says “The military's limitations were recently displayed when Canada could only participate in peacekeeping operations in Macedonia by transferring troops from elsewhere in the Balkans”.

These are married men and women who have children. They do not even get home to see their families any more. We need long term budgets and not just on a yearly basis. We need a budget that will be there and increased for the next 10 years.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am saying that our navy should continue to build ships on a rotating basis because when the contract for 10 frigates was received by Saint John, New Brunswick, and MIL Davie Inc., they started to age after 10 years. We are saying one ship a year, whether it be for the coast guard, the navy or whatever.

We are also saying that we should be bidding on the contracts in the United States. The Jones act has blocked us. We were the first ones to go to the U.S. when Ambassador Chrétien was there. I asked him if he was dealing with the Jones act and he replied that he had never been asked. When we went down this time to see the new Canadian ambassador he too said that he had never been asked.

When we went to see Vice-President Cheney he said he was glad we had raised it because it was not right. Canada should have the opportunity to bid down there, build those ships in Canada, and put our people back to work. We have the most modern shipyard anywhere in the world sitting idle right now because we do not have a navy shipbuilding policy, and we can build ships cheaper than anyone else.

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I have had the opportunity since 1993 to work on defence and veterans affairs issues and to review in the last couple of years in great detail the state of readiness of our armed forces.

Retired generals and retired colonels came to our committee and made presentations. I wish the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had been there to hear what they had to say about our armed forces and the needs that are not being addressed by the government that should be.

I am confident in my belief that our men and women in uniform are without some of the essential equipment they might well require in this new war against terrorism.

The House will recall that since my election as an MP in 1993 I have repeatedly risen on the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. As everyone in the House knows, there were those who lost their lives because we did not get the EH-101s to replace those Sea Kings. Members of my family have said to me, “Please get out and fight for the replacement of those Sea Kings”.

The House knows that I have remained firm in my belief that the government has been more concerned with the political consequences that would follow the replacement of the Sea Kings with the EH-101s and not the military factors that make their replacement so essential.

Many here in the House and indeed many in the other place have questioned the government's lack of action in providing our armed forces personnel with the best equipment possible for the tasks we assign them.

In 1999 a report by CSIS said that there were 50 terrorist groups in Canada and they had 350 people working with them. Instead of the government doing something about it, what did it do? It laid off 750 CSIS employees. Instead of increasing the numbers to look after the safety of Canadians, 750 employees were laid off.

Our concerns are not political in nature. Rather, we recognize that our men and women in uniform are not in a position to come to Parliament Hill with placards when their funding is cut. We know that our men and women in uniform are going to the food banks. We are aware that when they came back from peacekeeping missions they were told on the airplane to take off their boots because they had to pass them to the men and women who were going to replace them. Imagine that here in Canada there is not enough money in the budget to even give uniforms and boots to our armed forces.

A senator who went over to Kosovo said that when he saw our peacekeepers he could not believe it when he looked at their uniforms. He could not believe the lack of resources that they had. Our armed forces have repeatedly shown their selfless desire to complete their duties without hesitation. In return we must insist that the government honour its duty to them by providing the tools they require.

Those of us who have advocated increased spending for our military have in the past been called alarmists. It has been said in the House that we live in a post cold war world that does not require us to be as vigilant as we once had to be. Last week tells us differently now. No one in Canada could have predicted the events of last week, and no one in the U.S.A. However those events have served as a vicious reminder that we can never allow ourselves to lower our guard.

In fiscal year 1993-94 the budget for the Department of National Defence was $12 billion. That budget was stripped down to a scandalous $9.4 billion by 1998. We would be wise to bear in mind and consider that it was during the period of these massive cuts that our armed forces operational tempo, the ratio of time spent by our Canadian forces personnel in deployed missions, rose from 6% to 23%.

Today, on the eve of the most important conflict since the second world war, we are witnessing firsthand the price of those deep cuts. The government has as its policy to maintain a regular force of no fewer than 60,000. Yet, as we stand here today, the actual number has dropped below 55,000. Our forces have been called to duty in almost every corner of the globe, to the point where we have made unreasonable demands of our most loyal citizens and their families.

Some of our armed forces equipment has been found to be either unsafe or in need of significant repair each and every time it is to be used. As hon. members are aware, we have frigates that were built in Saint John, New Brunswick. We were supposed to have modified helicopters and that was not done because of the cuts.

A unanimous report was brought forth by our defence committee with all party support. It said that we should continue, on an ongoing rotational basis, the building of navy ships right here in Canada, whether by MIL Davie Inc. or Saint John Shipbuilding Limited.

When I was down in the United States just a week before that horrible attack I met with Vice-President Cheney and I raised the Jones act. I want it on the record that he agreed with me it was time to address the Jones act whereby we cannot bid when ships are being built in the United States but they can bid on all our contracts.

We should not be buying used submarines from London, England, that cannot float. We then pay $800 million to make them float. We should be putting our own people to work. We should be building our ships and giving our navy the tools to do the job.

The House will recall the disturbing reports of rusting and missing parts on helicopters and aircraft like the CF-18. Lives have been lost. We must make sure that no more lives are lost in Canada because our men do not have modern tools to do their job.

The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has repeatedly made all party unanimous recommendations to the government in support of more funding and better equipment for our military. Many of us have been encouraged to hear the Minister of Finance indicate that from this day forward no expense would be spared to ensure the safety and security of Canada and our people.

One might ask if we should have been more diligent in the past in maintaining the funding levels at a rate where our operational readiness was not a point of debate. One might also ask if we should have encouraged that state of mind when approaching major equipment purchases like the ongoing process to replace our Sea King helicopters. What the government is proposing as replacements for those Sea King helicopters are not really replacements as they cannot do the job that the Sea Kings could do.

The House will know that the government's instructions are that the procurement process be directed on the basis of the lowest price compliant bid despite the fact that Treasury Board guidelines require such programs to operate under the provisions of a best value principle.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for us to predict what our military needs will be in the coming months. All we know for certain is that our armed forces and our country as a whole must be prepared for the worst. It is no longer acceptable for us to assume that the United States will protect us just as it is no longer possible for us to take comfort in the fact that the cold war has ended.

The sentiment I rise to express today, one of deep respect for our Canadian armed forces coupled with distress at our government's inaction, is one that is shared by a legion of retired military personnel who have committed their years out of uniform to the protection and promotion of those who remain in uniform today. Let us learn from those who have firsthand experience in these matters and let us listen to them. Let us put their wise counsel into practice and let us prove to the world that our armed forces are indeed a force to be reckoned with.

There are many in the world today who hate Canada simply because we are a democracy and friends of the U.S. There are groups with arsenals of weaponry who would do us harm solely because we value freedom, liberty and human rights above all else.

The only thing that makes their existence more frightening is that we cannot say for certain where they are. The events of last week have shown us that despite the best intelligence gathering available these terrorist threats can strike whenever and wherever they want. Those who would do our country, our continent and our friends harm should know that the Canadian armed forces will respond. Those who would seek to end our way of life should think twice about doing so, fearful of the protection we have afforded ourselves.

The reality is that the world knows that Canada's military power is not what it used to be. In the time since the House last sat the American ambassador himself issued a friendly but stern reminder to us that we have defence related obligations to our friends and allies that cannot be forgotten. We cannot take comfort in the security our relationship with the U.S. provides us and then not rise to the occasion when it asks for our help.

Last week, in mourning the loss of the 5,000 innocent victims of this tragedy, our nation showed its infinite capacity for compassion. As the nations of the world prepare for a battle between the forces of good and evil let us remind them why we are known for our courage. We will be there to assist.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick, there was a special ecumenical prayer service at our Roman Catholic diocese. The first person to speak was a gentleman representing the Muslim community. The second speaker was a very dear friend of mine from our Jewish community. The third was a Baptist minister and the fourth was Roman Catholic Bishop Faber MacDonald.

We were at the cathedral with two-thirds of our firemen in their uniforms, along with members of our police department. When the gentleman representing the Muslims got up to speak, it tugged at my heart and I cried. I cried because he said, like all of us here today, that somehow we have to find peace. He said that the majority of the people in his community is not in favour of terrorist attacks. This is not what they want. He asked if we could all work together to bring peace around the world.

As my hon. colleague has said, we in the House of Commons must all work together for this is truly the most serious situation since the second world war. On behalf of all the citizens of Saint John our deepest sympathies and prayers go out to all those families and to those who lost their lives in New York City.

I was in Washington just one week prior to when the attack took place. I have two brothers who have families, children and grandchildren, who live in the United States. I have been in touch with them. My oldest brother asked me to make sure that Canada and the U.S.A. work together to bring peace so that this never happens again either in Canada or in the U.S. We must work together.

This is not a political statement, but I will say that I hope and trust that the government will be able to provide more money for our military, the RCMP and CSIS. We are all here to do what is right for our people.

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the government's commitment to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans limited to humanitarian aid and North American security only, or will our armed forces be committed to possible attacks overseas?

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister has to do with the fact that he wants to allow those who have AIDS to smoke marijuana.

I heard the minister speak tonight about tobacco and the effect it has on our health. Is the minister looking at legalizing marijuana? I did some research on marijuana. As soon as people smoke one cigarette it goes into their brain cells, stays there for nine days and then continues to build up.

If the minister is looking at legalizing marijuana, has he done any research on its side effects? Could he assure Canadians that we do not have to worry about it?

[Saint John Army Cadet Corps, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour today to rise in support of the 1691 Saint John Army Cadet Corps, affiliated with the 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, of which I am the only female honorary gunner in Canada.

This past weekend the young men and women of the 1691 Saint John Army Cadet Corps held their 60th annual inspection parade and were reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, Madam Trenholme.

Having witnessed firsthand the commitment of these young Canadian citizens, I must remind the House of the invaluable service provided by the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. There is, in my view, no better training for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship than that offered by the Royal Canadian Army Cadets.

I must urge the government to renew and restore its financial support for our cadets and to assist in any way possible in the recruitment of new cadets each and every year.

When so many young Canadians are feeling alienated from the institutions of our country, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets gives them a reason to believe in their country of Canada. We thank them for their service as we also thank our Canadian armed forces personnel, for the—

[Petitions, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present thousands of signatures on a petition from citizens of southwest New Brunswick to the House of Commons.

The petitioners say that since the VIA Rail Atlantic train linking Halifax and Montreal through southwestern New Brunswick was a successful service from 1985 until its discontinuance in 1994 with over 66% occupancy and 330 passengers handled per trip, including 70 at Saint John and 50 at Fredericton Junction in its last full year of operation in 1993, and that since the scarcity and price of fossil fuels, along with concerns over health related air quality issues and global warming mean that air and private auto options for travel are becoming less attractive, they request that the House of Commons act through Transport Canada and the federal crown corporation, VIA Rail, to restore passenger train service linking Saint John and Fredericton westward through Sherbrooke to Montreal and east through Moncton to Halifax.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that all the motions before us today were introduced by the Canadian Alliance. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has modified them slightly but they are in essence the same motions that were presented during clause by clause study of the bill in committee.

Motion No. 1 would remove the words “family farm” which are already in the bill. I know members of the House and a lot of people across Canada have different definitions of what constitutes a family farm.

I did not grow up on a farm but my family and I have a lot of friends living on farms. I have to say that there are different definitions, as stated, of what constitutes a family farm. The PC Party believes that it is important for family farms to be recognized specifically in the mandate of the FCC.

It is the family farm and primary production that should be the primary focus of the FCC's activities, not simply farming operations in general terms. By eliminating family farms from the clause, we strongly feel that it is a step backward and actually does a disservice to family farms across Canada. Not one of us would be sitting here today, not the young pages nor anyone else, if we did not have our farmers who produce the carrots, potatoes, vegetables, milk and meat that we need to survive. These are produced by our farmers and their families from generation to generation. The farm is important.

The president of the FCC stated in committee that discussions were held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the wording of the bill and that ultimately the CFA was satisfied. He also said that the FCC took very seriously the fact that primary production was its focus.

That being said, the PC Party will not be supporting the motion. It is very important that family farms be referred to in the bill. There is no question about that.

When I went out west in 1993, I met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We had a discussion at that time that really shocked me. Where I come from, a large city in the province of New Brunswick and the greatest city in the east, the farmers and the people are hurting. When we forget about the family farm by removing it from the bill, we create a major problem. That will only be the first change and, before we know it, the needs of the farmers will not be addressed.

Motion No. 2 speaks to the issue of competition. I find it rather difficult to believe that the Canadian Alliance has actually introduced this motion. It is not only restrictive and limiting to the FCC's activities but it speaks against the idea of competition. It is another Canadian Alliance policy shift. Now it seems it does not support open competition.

We have to have open competition because that is when we get the best prices. The FCC should be allowed to compete with all other financial institutions. Competition is healthy and no matter whether it is, farmers, car dealers or whatever is being sold, competition is good.

The mandate of the FCC has been expanded since its creation and it is no longer a lender of last resort, nor should it be. It has tailored its operations to the agriculture and agribusiness community.

If commercial banks want to enter those areas they are welcome to do so. The competition will only benefit farmers in the end. I have to say that the PC Party will therefore not be supporting this motion either.

Motion No. 3 speaks to the issue of farmland ownership. Once again this matter was discussed during the committee's deliberations. This amendment could place limitations on FCC activities.

I will use the example of young farmers and the opportunity for an intergenerational transfer of farms. It does not matter whether we live in rural areas or in cities, towns or villages. Parents who own their home, their car, a business or a lot want to leave them to their children.

In this case the farm is their home, their business. That is the way it is. They want to leave it to the family. It is the family farm that they want to pass from generation to generation. This was discussed during the committee's deliberations. This amendment would place limitations on that. People should be allowed to acquire land directly from family members. They would lease it over a long period of time and eventually acquire ownership. If this amendment's time limit were imposed it could prevent this from happening.

That being said, the president of the FCC stated in committee that he would be quite comfortable with a five year limit, which was consistent with the remarks he made at the previous committee meetings. The average time for land disposal at the FCC is actually about eight months, which allows for more than enough time set out in this amendment. The PC Party will support this amendment.

I have to say that if members take a look at FCC and how long it has been in place, they will see it has been there to work for the farmers, to make sure that the farmers are indeed viable and that their farms will be there for their children and for all of us. We must bring forth legislation that is good for the farmers. The farmers know what is good for them and when they say it is good for them, then it is good for us. That is why we have to work with the farmers.

During the first 34 years of FCC and the Farm Credit Act there were many evolutions and many changes had to take place. The farmers came forward and spoke about it. I have to say that I have major concerns about these motions, as do my colleagues and my colleague who sits on the committee.

On behalf of my colleagues in the PC Party I want to state that we are addressing these concerns. We hope the House will take our concerns under advisement. Perhaps there will be amendments so that we can support all the motions, but as it stands now we cannot do that.