Elsie Wayne

[Veterans Affairs, January 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the House knows well of the heroic courage our Merchant Navy veterans showed 60 years ago when called to the seas in time of war. The House knows well of the selfless risks taken by our Merchant Navy veterans when they cast themselves into harm's way for king and country.

Yet for reasons that escape all of us here in this Chamber, we continue to dishonour them. Why has the government not paid out the full 100%, not a mere 60%, of the compensation money to all eligible veterans? Why will it not pay? Many veterans have not even received 60% yet.

Why does the Minister of Veterans Affairs insist on trying to justify this disgraceful action of the government, forcing national heroes to fight for every single dollar owed to them? Instead, why will the minister not rise here today and make a pledge to these brave men that their money will be in their hands by the end of February?

[Veterans Affairs, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Will the minister commit to the House today that every eligible merchant navy veteran or surviving spouse will receive their full 100% compensation package owed to them as guaranteed by the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs?

[The Famous Five, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on this day 71 years ago, the privy council of Great Britain made an historic decision that women were in fact persons under the law.

This decision was the result of the tireless efforts of five Canadian women: Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby.

As the House is well aware, this morning we honoured these Canadian heroes with a monument of statues benefiting the importance of their contribution to this great country, but perhaps the greatest tribute to these courageous patriots is that today we have a woman governor general, a woman chief of staff of the supreme court and many women in the House of Commons and the government's cabinet.

I am proud to serve with the right hon. member for Kings—Hants who, as prime minister, made it a priority to continue and enhance work which these brave women began 50 years before him.

In remembering the great accomplishments of the famous five, we must never forget to thank those who have followed in their footsteps.

[Peacekeeping, October 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with a mixed sense of both pride and concern that I rise to speak tonight on the issue of sending Canadian armed forces peacekeepers to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

I would like to advise you, Madam Speaker, that I intend to share my time tonight with my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska.

In the history of the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts, few countries share the type of legacy earned by the people of Canada. Our Canadian peacekeepers are the most requested in the world, known for their fairness, their dedication and their great skill and ability. Our peacekeepers have challenged those who would challenge freedom and liberty, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

At no time in our nation's history has our service to global community or our sense of duty and responsibility ever been questioned. Whenever human rights and democracy were threatened, Canada has stood in their defence. Whenever tyranny and genocide have ruled, Canada has sought them out and ended their reign.

Given the importance of this debate tonight, let me be perfectly clear. I will not dispute the merit of sending Canadian armed forces peacekeepers to Ethiopia or Eritrea, but I will oppose with my very last breath sending our armed forces to any point on this globe if they are either unprepared or ill-equipped. As my colleague from Nova Scotia has stated, many of our men and women in uniform have been sent before as peacekeepers and they have been ill-equipped and unprepared.

I was at a family resource centre on one of the bases in Nova Scotia. I want the Minister of National Defence to know that I was really impressed with that family resource centre, but they had to have a place for little children so they could feed them, because our men and women were taking them to the food banks. They had to have counselling there because the fathers were away for months at a time. The government did not give one penny to that resource centre. The people on the base had to go out into the community and raise the money in order to put that family resource unit together. It was unbelievable. When they told me about this I was really in shock to think that we had allowed this to happen in Canada.

I have often stood in the House and said that when we order our men and women in uniform into harm's way, we must not increase the risk by supplying them with resources and equipment that are insufficient for the tasks we have assigned them to do.

I am confident that hon. members are aware of the uncertain state of our armed forces. In the last seven years Canada's defence budget has declined steadily as the operational tempo of our armed forces has risen. When I speak of our military's operational tempo, I speak of the ratio of time spent in deployed missions by our men and women in uniform.

This is at the very heart of what we debate here tonight. In the 1993-94 fiscal year, the Department of National Defence had a budget of $12 billion. Perhaps this was not ideal but it was respectable. Tragically, by the 1998-99 fiscal year the department was cut to a shameful $9.4 billion. In this past decade the defence department's budget has been cut substantially, by 23%. In this same time our military has been called upon to battle both the worst of mother nature's arsenal and the worst of the world's tyrannies.

Sadly, the cuts to the military's budget have been unavoidably followed by cuts to the numbers in their ranks. The number of CAF personnel has been reduced by about 20% in the same period as the budget cuts. The reduction in the number of civilian employees at the Department of National Defence has been a staggering 40%.

That said, fewer people with fewer resources are being assigned a greater number of missions and more work. The House knows as well or better than I that when we use terms such as missions and work we mean risk and danger.

Just this past weekend the chief of the defence staff, General Maurice Baril, confirmed in the Ottawa Citizen that there was likely to be an additional reduction of 2,000 to 3,000 men and women in a process that he called readjustment. General Baril alluded to a grave prediction that up to 10% of all the bases in Canada will either be shut down or sold off.

The best training in the world for young people is in the cadets reserve and then right into the military. They learn respect for their fellow Canadian, their fellow man, and they learn respect for their country. If we wanted to turn our country around, we would put more of our people in the military. We would give the military more money for the budget. We would give the minister more money for the budget. We would give Maurice Baril and whoever needs it more money.

Those men and women can never come up on this Hill with placards when in uniform and fight for what they need, but never do I want to see any of our people in the military taking their children to a soup kitchen.

That is with the understanding that about 50% of the defence department's infrastructure is aging rapidly and will need to be replaced within the next 10 years, at a heroic estimated cost of about $1 billion. That is why they talk about closing bases.

Those are just the details that are known. Those are just the facts and figures that any Canadian can learn by picking up the newspaper. Imagine what might be hidden away beyond the reach of the Access to Information Act.

It was around this time last year that we began to see the very real need for our help in East Timor. The House will recall the flurry of activity on the part of the Minister of National Defence at that time, when out of pure uncompromising necessity he had to limit our commitment to other parts of the world to make Canadian participation in East Timor possible.

I am a proud member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is very close to my heart. I attended committee meetings late last year when the chief of defence staff and his officers came and told us of the need to limit our international commitment until we had the resources to afford them.

My colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska is more knowledgeable than I in matters related to foreign affairs. I am certain he will have a greater understanding of and appreciation for the desperate situation now facing the Ethiopian people, but my duty here tonight is to speak for our armed forces and my responsibility to the House is to defend the best interests of the men and women in uniform.

If the merits of this mission are outweighed by the risks to our troops, then the cost is too great for our country. If the branch of peace can be extended to those desperate people, if a better life can be afforded to them by our action, it would be cruelly un-Canadian to turn our backs.

I will finish my remarks here tonight as I began, by praising the hard earned and well deserved reputation of Canadian peacekeepers. Here tonight it is under the watchful eye of a protective God that we dispatch them to help plant a Canadian seed of freedom in a land scorched by the fire of war and soaked by the tears of a crestfallen people. We pray for their safe return.

Godspeed and good luck.

[Civilian War-Related Benefits Act, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for switching with me. I will be short so that she will have time. I hope everyone has a chance to say a few words with regard to Bill C-41.

I am so pleased that I have been part and parcel of the committee that unanimously agreed to Bill C-41. When I was five years old, two of my brothers served overseas during the conflict, so I know there is a need for this bill. During that time the Red Cross, the Ferry Command, the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit and all the civilian forces made sure that the needs of my brothers and all the others in the military were met. They did their job in order to bring peace around the world.

I am also pleased to see that the bill deals with disability. We must never forget that most of our veterans are now seniors who are aging every day. I hope and pray that the bill will be expanded a bit to include veterans' hospital care because these people need to be taken care of as well. Many of our veterans' hospitals have been closed down and replaced with tiny units. We need to look at that because it is not enough for these people.

I also want to make sure that the rest of the compensation package is in place for the merchant navy men and their widows. I have been assured by the minister that he will work tooth and nail to make sure that happens. The government is still processing some of the applications that have been put forward for the compensation packages. We need to expedite that as quickly as possible.

Many more applications were received than had been anticipated. We thought there would be around 4,500, but my understanding is that about 14,000 have been filed and it has not been easy. It has been a lot of work. However, when it comes to the merchant navy men and their widows I will never stop speaking out for them. They are very dear to my heart. Even this morning I had calls from merchant navy men asking me about their compensation packages.

When it comes to the civilian war-related benefits act we must always remember that it was brought in by the PC government and Gerry Merrithew, who was the minister of veterans affairs at that time. He is from Saint John, New Brunswick. That act is now being amended to include more. I congratulate the minister for expanding upon the act, but he should remember that it was brought in by the PC government. We saw that there were people who had been terribly neglected and that there was a need for change.

I want everyone to remember that everyone on the committee, our friends from the Bloc, our friends from the NDP, our friends from the Canadian Alliance and the PC Party, agreed with the minister on the bill and unanimously agreed to bring the amendments to the civilian war related benefits act before the House of Commons. All of us know there are those who are suffering today and those who are in need.

I agree with my hon. friend from the Bloc that indeed the RCMP must be included. We cannot just eliminate those RCMP officers. They put their lives on the line for all of us who sit in the House of Commons. They put their lives on the line so that we could have the peace which we we have around the country. The Red Cross, the Ferry Command, the firefighters and all of them put their lives on the line as well.

I trust that there will be no opposition whatsoever to Bill C-41. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague from the NDP for allowing me to speak now because I have another commitment later in the day.

[Taxation, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member from the NDP party to know that there is no question that we would certainly support a pharmacare program.

When I was a councillor back in 1977, the mayor of the day was Samuel Davis. He was the first and only Jewish gentleman to be mayor in Saint John. Samuel said to me “Elsie, I want you to go out to east Saint John. There's a meeting out there. They're calling it the seniors' club”. He said he did not know what it meant but he wanted me to go. I was not a senior then but off I went.

When I walked into the meeting I was really impressed with the seniors who were there. They said they wanted to get seniors involved. They wanted to get seniors who were lonely and living alone involved as well. They started their first club and today there are 34 seniors' clubs in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick. We have brought the seniors out. A lot of them do not need medication now because they have friends, they get involved and they are busy. However, there is no question that they some need help.

This motion calls on the federal government to double the basic personal deduction for Canadian taxpayers over the age of 69. All of us in the House recognize that with a rapidly ageing population, Canada is faced with the challenge of ensuring that our senior citizens are able to live out their retirement years in dignity. The word dignity means an awful lot.

Studies show that approximately 70% of elderly Canadians are dependent on public pension plans. It should also be noted that in 1997, 662,000 Canadians aged 65 and over had incomes below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs. In the same year, 45% of seniors aged 65 and over and living alone were considered to have low incomes compared with only 7% of seniors who lived with their families.

According to Statistics Canada, the average income of seniors across Canada is just a little over $20,000. I want everyone here tonight to think about that. Could we live on $20,000? How would we manage? How would we make out? No, members certainly could not do it, and seniors have a most difficult time with it.

The OAS, the old age security program, accounts for the largest part of seniors' incomes at 29%. This is followed by CPP, 21%; retirement pensions, 20%; non-RRSP investment, 11.6%; and employment income, 7.6%. Meanwhile, 60% of the after tax income of seniors goes toward the basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing and transportation. There is very little left for someone who is renting an apartment. They do not live in luxury.

The bottom line here is seniors. Like other segments of the population they pay too much tax. Something must be done, not only for our seniors but for all Canadian taxpayers regardless of their age.

Canada continues to have the highest personal income tax rates in the G-7. Federal budgetary revenues are at record levels in Canada: $155.6 billion in fiscal year 1998-99, up 34% since 1993-94. Meanwhile personal income tax revenues were $72.5 billion in 1998-99, up from $51.4 billion in 1993-94. That is a 41% increase since the Liberals took power in 1993 despite the fact that Canada's real GDP grew by just 15% over the same period of time, so we know that it was increased taxes.

Although the Liberal government claims to be reducing taxes, it continues to increase CPP contributions. In the past year alone CPP premiums have increased by 40 cents.

We can and should do more for Canadians, including our seniors. However, the current government has difficulty in organizing its priorities. It chooses to carry out an agenda of wasteful government spending. We need only to ask the Auditor General of Canada about that. The people of Canada should look at his reports.

With respect to the motion before us today, the PC Party believes that the basic personal exemption, the BPE, can and should be increased, not only for those over 69 but for all Canadians. We have proposed that the BPE should be increased from its current level of $7,131 to $12,000. This can be done over a five year period and will remove 2.5 million Canadians from the tax rolls. Many of them are seniors and a lot of them are families in need.

I have to say I will never ever forget what Mr. Mykytyshyn said about our people back home. I come from Canada's first city incorporated by royal charter, a city that built the country. Those people moved from Saint John right across the country and built it. I have to say that a lot of those people from the maritime provinces who are in Alberta were really hurt when Mr. Mykytyshyn made his statements. They said “We are out here building Alberta for heaven's sake, but we are from the maritimes”. These are the Canadians who can least afford to pay income tax yet are currently forced to do so.

This would result in taxpayers saving as much as $1,200 annually. Furthermore we have also suggested in our task force report on poverty that the value of the age credit be initially increased by $170 by raising the amount on which it is based to $4,482, providing much needed relief for our aging population.

The task force on poverty went out west. It went into central Canada. It went into Quebec. It went right across the nation from Newfoundland right through to B.C. There is poverty in all of the provinces.

Canadians deserve tax fairness. The reform alliance party needs to take some time to understand that concept. Its 17% flat tax proposal really is not a flat tax. It would give millionaires a $135,000 tax break while people, such as the seniors we are talking about today, making $20,000 would get an $895 tax break. It is not exactly tax fairness. Perhaps the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt should tell his constituents what his party's plan would really offer.

That being said, the PC Party does not support the motion as it is written. We believe that all members of society, not just a little select group, deserve a tax break.

The reality is that the current annual cost to provide benefits to the elderly is $24 billion for the federal government alone and it is expected to triple over the next three decades.

I have raised my personal concerns on more than one occasion in the House about the ability of senior citizens to pay the ever increasing cost of heating their homes. Those seniors who live in residence or in apartments will likely have to move because there will be an increase in their rents. Those seniors who continue to live in their own little houses will certainly see an increase in their heating costs unless the government does something to assist them.

Senior citizens on tightly fixed incomes do not have the flexibility to cope with soaring oil prices. I do not believe that anyone in the House will deny the potential for an extremely cold winter this year. I do not feel that the way to treat grandparents and veterans—and our veterans are all seniors in this nation—is to leave them out in the cold.

As I have stated here tonight, Canadians of all ages are in need of tax relief.

[Shipbuilding, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years I have been asking the Minister of Industry for a national shipbuilding policy. We always get the same rhetoric. The rhetoric from the minister is that there is an overcapacity.

There would be no overcapacity, if we had a national shipbuilding policy that made us competitive with all the other countries around the world that build ships.

Will the minister bring forth a national shipbuilding policy immediately, based on the recommendations from the shipbuilding industry—

[Shipbuilding Industry, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while this government stands idle, shipyards have been closed, including mine in Saint John, New Brunswick, and shipyard workers have been laid off across Canada by the thousands.

One hour ago, busloads of frustrated shipyard workers from the province of Quebec and beyond arrived on Parliament Hill to protest this government's neglect. These brave men came to ensure that the government does not miss its last chance to do what is right.

Tomorrow, the Standing Committee on Finance will review Bill C-213. The time has come for this innovative legislation and the time has come for the minister to endorse it. The time for the government to defend and promote a great Canadian shipbuilding industry has come.

We on both sides of the House must work together to resurrect our national shipbuilding industry, to give our military the ships it needs and to allow shipyard workers to proudly put food on the table for their families once again.

[National Defence, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed replacement program for the Sea King helicopters disqualifies the Sikorsky S-92 and the EH Cormorant. This replacement should be about saving lives, not about saving face.

Will the Prime Minister please do what is right and modify the Sea King replacement contract to allow a full and fair tendering process that gives all companies a fair chance to bid and be considered?

[National Defence, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is not fair and it is not open. I can tell you that.

It is obvious to anyone who looks at the maritime helicopter replacement program that both E.H. Industries and Sikorsky are out of the running even before the race gets started. The Sea King replacement specs prove that the Prime Minister is only interested in the Eurocopter Cougar.

Will the Prime Minister put politics aside for the sake of the military, make the bidding process fair and finally correct the mistake he made years ago when he cancelled the EH-101?