Elsie Wayne

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague has stated is the exact the position we are in.

I am going to speak from the heart. The hon. member referred to the fact that we are talking about lives. I want all members in the House today to think about their own child or grandchild who may be a pilot on one of the Sea Kings. We would not want a family member to be a pilot on one of the Sea Kings today.

If we want to continue to do peacekeeping, we must equip our armed forces with the best tools available so they can do what they need to do.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have this opportunity to respond. It shows that those on the government side do not understand what has been happening. What he is talking about now is the replacement of the Labradors, not the Sea Kings, which are still flying, and they are going to have less numbers than before.

Do members want to know what happened to the fishing problem in Newfoundland, for heaven's sake? The government did not have Sea Kings that could look after the 200 mile limit. Foreign ships were coming in and dragging the bottom of the ocean. All these things have had a negative impact, and they sat there. This has been strictly politics, nothing more than that.

The only reason the government and those who were elected in 1993 said they would cancel the EH-101 was because they thought it was a popular thing to do, not the right thing to do, to get votes.

The government should go and talk to those men and women in the military like the rest of us do and see how they feel. They are not allowed to come in here and say anything. They are not allowed to open their mouths, so I am here to tell the government what they are telling us.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Who said they do not need them? That is sad. I cannot imagine how the members on the government side can sit there with smiles on their faces and not be worried about jeopardizing lives of people in the military. I cannot believe that I see that happening in the House this morning.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, from the information we have been receiving through national defence, it could be the year 2007. Some have said 2005. Think about that. That is unbelievable. We are not going to have any helicopters flying at all. I cannot believe that anyone—

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, defence has been determined that over $800 million has been spent because of the cancellation of the EH-101 contract. Now not all the Sea Kings can be replaced. There will be fewer helicopters than what we had when all Sea Kings were flying.

I have major concerns. When we put the amount of money which has been spent trying to keep these old helicopters flying on top of what it cost to cancel out, it will cost taxpayers more in the end to get a helicopter that cannot fly the distance a Sea King can. I have major concerns about what is taking place here today.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs presented to the House on Tuesday, March 20, be concurred in.

It is with mixed emotions that I rise today to speak to this motion as it concerns an issue very much in the minds of all Canadians.

The procurement process to replace the Sea King helicopters is one that we have followed for some time but that has only recently seized the attention of the House of Commons.

It was last May 18 that my colleague, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, raised the prospect of this government using the contract for political means. At that time, and then an opposition member, my colleague, suggested that the government had a secret agenda, an agenda that involved a specific company. The government said that my colleague's claims were laughable. The government said that there was no plan to place one competitor above another.

Only three months ago the government introduced a procurement process that was biased in favour of one company only. The process introduced called for the lowest price compliant bid to win the day, not taking into account whatsoever fleet commonality or, more important, better value. This was when the treasury board's own guidelines specifically urged all government departments to abide by a best value criteria when launching a procurement process.

I have been told that in the strict legal interpretation of Treasury Board guidelines 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, no laws have been broken. However I must ask a question. Why did the government choose to avoid the generally accepted practices that have guided our military purchases in the past?

No matter whether it was a Liberal or Conservative government in the past, it never followed those types of guidelines. We have been told that it was to expand the number of Canadian bidders. Yet in retrospect it is clear that only one wholly owned Canadian company is in serious competition for any of the related contracts.

That takes me to the second problem I have with this contract, which is the fact that the government chose to split the contract into two parts, one for the basic vehicle and another for the critical mission systems. If I wanted to play politics with this one, like some of my colleagues are, I would vote for that because it would create some jobs in the province of New Brunswick.

When I was taken out to dinner by the company I said that I would only have a bowl of soup because no one buys me with dinner. No one buys me with anything. To this date, no one does. I guarantee that.

I want to also say right here and now that when it comes to the men and women who wear uniforms, we should take the politics out of it. We should give them the tools to do their jobs.

I am not an engineer. I do not have a full appreciation of the technical difficulties that might come to pass as a result of buying two independent products. However we all know the reason this is being done. It is for political reasons because in 1993 the government of the day cancelled the EH-101 and wasted $800 million.

From what we have been told, this is the first such split contract of its kind since the House of Commons has been in place. The assistant deputy minister responsible said that this was the first of its kind, which seems to me to be a very risky proposition. We must give our Canadian Armed Forces the best equipment to do their jobs, not only because it is the right thing to do but because we give them complicated tasks that always put them in harm's way.

I am unsure of the ethical or moral reasons that we would put in place a procurement process that would buy the cheapest helicopter but not necessarily the best. I have for some time asked the government to reconsider the procurement process. One potential bidder, E.H. Industries Ltd., has gone to the length of filing a complaint with both the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal on this matter. The company believes that by facing this competition on the lowest price alone, it is at a significant disadvantage.

The House will recall that it was E.H. Industries that manufactured the EH-101 purchased by the previous government. I am sure the House will recall that in the election of 1993, as I have stated, the issue of EH-101 featured prominently in all debates. The House will certainly recall that the Prime Minister held his pen up high and said that he would purchase no new helicopters. Zero helicopters is what was said.

It seems very strange that the only red book promise that has been kept by this government was the one promise that related to these helicopters. The GST, free trade and a range of other promises were quickly forgotten.

I hope the government is not choosing to instigate a procurement process that would prejudice E.H. Industries' helicopter, the Cormorant, solely on the basis that it was the successful bidder 10 years ago.

What makes this issue so important to us all is that the helicopters currently in use are so dangerous. Some of the pilots have already lost their lives, just outside my city. Some of the parents of the pilots came to see me. They asked me to take up their cause and force the government's hand in this regard.

The Sea Kings have given yeoman service to this country for almost 40 years, and they have earned their retirement. I have great compassion for the men and women in uniform who must use the Sea Kings on a daily basis.

The Minister of National Defence has repeatedly said that unsafe helicopters will not fly, but cannot explain why our choppers go down in places like Hawaii, East Timor, and even on the coast of Nova Scotia. If we cannot predict when a Sea King is safe, how then do we know which ones to fly? How can the minister make this guarantee?

At the end of the day, I believe the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will have a lot to answer for in this process. I believe the Canadian people are sick and tired of the government playing politics when it should be watching the backs of our Canadian forces personnel and doing what is right for them.

When I was mayor of Saint John I did a number of major capital purchases, so I can speak with some experience when I say that this contract process is wrong. It is unfair and places bidders at a significant disadvantage. Whenever we have the public challenges to a procurement process, as we have seen with the maritime helicopter program, we know that something is amiss.

I am pleased, therefore, that in the next sitting of our parliament the other place will undertake a committee of the whole to review this entire process. I applaud our colleagues in the other place for their diligence to duty and their courage. It is my hope that in the consideration of the Sea King and the challenges we face in replacing them, we look in the mirror and recognize we have a duty larger than just helping out some of our friends.

Page 30 of the procurement study also refers to the fact that the Government of Canada should convene a national round table on shipbuilding in Canada with a view to establishing a national shipbuilding policy. We brought that report in asking for a national shipbuilding policy in June 2000. We said there should be a naval shipyard in Canada where we would build all our navy ships. We should not be buying used submarines in London, England, only to find out they cannot float, then pay $800 million to try to get them to float. That is an insult to our men and women in uniform.

Having sat on the defence committee since 1993, I am really worried when I see what the government has done and the politics it has played with our military. The duty of government is clear. The recommendations of this all party procurement study by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs are clear, and our job is very clear. There was unanimous all party support for the procurement study of June 2000, yet here it is June 2001, a year later, and the government did not even listen to its own people who chaired the committee.

I say let us do what is right. The government has not done anything that is right when it comes to the military. Men who flew home from Kosovo were asked to take their boots off so they could be given to those men who were getting on the planes to fly to Kosovo. If we cannot afford a pair of boots for our men and women in the military, that is a shame.

I am ashamed of what we are doing with the helicopter procurement process which is being used. I ask the government today to please take the politics out of it, put out a tender, allow everyone to bid, and then bring in its recommendations.

[Shipbuilding, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I never said we were against Bombardier. We are asking if he will do the same thing for everyone else.

Could the Minister of Industry inform the House as to whether or not the owners of the Saint John shipyard have approached the government seeking financial assistance to help turn the shipyard into a wood processing plant?

Could the minister also confirm what portion of these funds is intended for the severance packages of the countless shipyard workers who have lost or will lose their jobs if this proposal is adopted?

[Shipbuilding, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has bent over backward to help companies like Bombardier through a system of interest free loans and tax incentives, yet when it comes to shipbuilding the minister is suddenly all talk and no action.

When will the minister treat all industries the same? When will he put his money where his mouth is and make good on his election promise to revitalize our national shipbuilding industry in Canada?

[Saint John Flames, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to praise true excellence in Canadian sports.

Last week before a record crowd, a sold out house in the greatest little city in the east, the Saint John Flames defeated the Wilkes-Barre Scranton Penguins from the U.S.A. to capture the AHL's 65th Calder Cup championship. This was not just a victory for the Flames. This was not just a victory for Saint John. This was a victory for all of Canada.

On Canadian soil those incredible athletes, under the watchful eye of the head coach, Jim Playfair, showed the world how Canada's game is supposed to be played. All Canadians, from the very young to the young at heart, should take pride in the tireless dedication of this band of hockey patriots in their quest to win the cup.

It is therefore with great appreciation that we say those three words that show our pride, and I would ask everyone to say it: Go Flames go.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the idea that this parliament would be allowed to vote itself a raise.

Because of some health problems this past week, I was back home in my riding. Even so, I was in my constituency office each day for a number of hours. There was an editorial in the local paper in which the editor stated that all citizens should get in touch with their MP if they did not agree with this raise. We have been swamped, absolutely swamped, with calls. The phones are jammed with calls and there are letters coming in. The calls and letters are not just for Elsie. They are for every member in the House of Commons, for every person. They are saying the same thing.

When we ran to become members of parliament we knew exactly what we would be paid. We knew that we had to have two residences, one at home for the family and one here. There is an image being portrayed out there. Everyone thinks that when we get to the Hill we become very wealthy. I think the take home pay after taxes is probably around $48,000 unless a member is on the government side and is a minister or a parliamentary secretary. It is not very much, but nevertheless we knew that. All of us knew that when we came to parliament.

We talk about a democratic parliament. When the government says “If you do not vote our way, you are out. You have to do it our way”, how can we call it a democratic parliament?

I made some calls today to find out if this had ever taken place in the House of Commons, if any government had said this to anyone on its side as well as on the opposition side. I was told by members who had been here before that no, this has never, ever been done. Nothing like this has ever been put forth.

I believe in my heart and soul that the salaries have to be reviewed and that there should be an independent commission. When I say an independent commission I mean that the House leaders should all sit down and choose who should form the commission, not the government but the House leaders. Whatever is brought forward should be binding. We just do not put our elected people in that position. We just do not do it.

I look at the issues, particularly back home in the maritime provinces, that we should be dealing with. I dealt with one today, asking for a national shipbuilding policy. I look up to the gallery and I see the faces of men, many men whose families are on welfare now. A lot of them have no alternative whatsoever and they are hurting.

I look at the child pornography situation. I do not believe there is a member in the House who wants child pornography in Canada but we are not dealing with it in the right manner. We cannot compare children with animals. We cannot do that. I do not know what has happened to us. I really and truly do not know.

There are so many issues we need to deal with. I see the poor. I see young people on the street begging. For some reason the family unit is becoming weaker, not stronger. We have to do something about it. We have to bring in some policies to help the family unit become stronger.

I really was shocked when I heard that if we vote against the bill then we will have a two tier system in the House of Commons. I do not think we would find that anywhere around the world. I do not think we would find that in any parliament around the world.

It tugs at my heart. I have respect for my colleagues on the government side. I have respect for the leader of the government. I do, but am telling the House this: it is pretty hard to stand here and say “Yes, Elsie is worth more than you are paying her”. That is not how people see it, particularly those who are poor and hungry and do not have any money in the bank. I have to say that. There is no way that those people feel we are worth more.

The image out there is that the only thing we do is question period. Nobody knows that when we work on committees we are here night and day, from the morning until usually 10 or 11 at night. If we are in our ridings it is for seven days a week. We know that and we understood that when we came up here.

I will tell members about pay. When I got elected as a councillor in Saint John, New Brunswick I got a cheque at the end of the month. I went to the clerk and asked what it was. I said that nobody could buy me. I was told that I got paid for doing that work. I think it was $9,000 a year. I never knew that before then.

We do not come here because we are looking for a cheque. What we come here for is to see what we can bring forth to help build this country and to provide a better quality of life for all of our citizens. That is what we are here for. That is what we want to do. Will we do more if are able to put more in the bank each week? Will we bring forth better policies that way? Will the government bring forth better policies that way?

If there is to be a review, that review should be done and we should be voting on it for all those who will be running as parliamentarians for the next parliament. It should be their salary, because when we ran every one of us knew exactly what our salary would be. All members on the government side and all members over here knew what our salaries would be.

I am really worried. Our responsibility to Canadian people is to do what is best for them. That is what we are here for. I know that a lot of my colleagues ran for that reason and got elected because they wanted to do what was best for the people.

When Canadians elected us, as they did last November, they did so with the belief and understanding that we would not abuse their trust. I believe that right now this is abusing their trust.

On behalf of all 301 of us in the House, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, I have to say I do not believe that this should be brought before the House and that we should be forced to vote on a raise to increase our salaries.