Elsie Wayne

[National Defence, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when asked four months ago, the Minister of National Defence denied that his government was planning to award a sole source contract to Eurocopter to replace our Sea King helicopters. Having reviewed the statement of requirement and letter of interest, it is now very clear that Eurocopter has a sizeable advantage over its competition.

Will the minister explain to the House why this entire process which he has put in place so clearly favours Eurocopter?

[World Alzheimer's Day, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, September 21, will mark World Alzheimer's Day.

Currently there are more than 316,000 who suffer from Alzheimer's, but as our nation's population ages that statistic is expected to grow.

Researchers predict that within 30 years there will be three-quarters of a million people afflicted with this devastating disease.

Alzheimer's is a progressive and irreversible dementia that is neither a fair nor normal companion to the aging process. It takes from its victims the loving memories and associations formed through the course of a vibrant lifetime.

The scientific community continues to seek not only a cure, but also preventive measures to eliminate the threat of this heartbreaking disease.

We wish the researchers every success in their efforts and we pray that all people across the country will support the families and all those people who are out to try to cure this disease.

[Fuel Costs, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like us to deal with what we can deal with in the House. I would like the government to deal with that.

Canadian truckers have seen a 40% increase in the cost of diesel fuel and are facing difficult decisions about keeping their rigs on the road. We must think about the effect on our economy if those trucks do not deliver.

The Minister of Finance keeps saying that he has to talk to the provinces. He never talked to the provinces when he raised the taxes, so why talk to the provinces when he has to lower them?

Will the minister commit right here and now to cut in half the excise tax on diesel fuel?

[Fuel Costs, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians could be faced with one of the coldest winters on record, made worse because of the skyrocketing price of heating their homes. Senior citizens and the less fortunate in our country will be hit the hardest by their heating costs.

Will the Prime Minister help low income families and the seniors of this nation by immediately cutting the GST on home heating fuel?

[100Th Birthday Greetings To The Queen Mother, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That as we will not be in the House of Commons on August 4, that the Speaker send an address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother expressing the heartiest good wishes and congratulations of all members of the House of Commons on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very special way in Canada of wishing people a very happy birthday, and it goes like this.

[National Defence, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the specifications for replacement of the Sea King helicopters were signed off two months ago by DND and then sent to the Minister of National Defence, who I understand has also signed off and forwarded them to the Prime Minister's office.

Would the Prime Minister inform the House today what is holding up the final approval of these specs? Is it because the Prime Minister does not want to have the Cormorant as part of the tender process?

[National Defence Act, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on behalf of the people of Saint John, New Brunswick, and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to speak in support of Bill S-18, an act to amend the National Defence Act with respect to the non-deployment of persons under the age of 18 years to theatres of hostilities.

A few hours ago it was my pleasure to help present an all-party unanimous report prepared by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is the view of our committee and all of its members that where it concerns the Canadian forces our politics must always be placed on the back burner.

Bill S-18 may not seem like a very controversial piece of legislation, but it is extremely significant to our country, our world and our young people.

I have seen firsthand the battlefields of the last century, where our young Canadian soldiers gave their lives for our country and our freedom. I had the honour of going to Vimy Ridge in France to bring back the remains of the unknown soldier. While I was there we went down into one of the trenches. What did we see but a little YMCA mug, a mug where they had picked up all the little pieces and put them together. Yes, one of our young persons in the first world war, who was a member of the YMCA, went overseas so that we could be here with our freedom today.

Too many of our sons and daughters have been taken from their families by war long before their time. This legislation trumpets the end of that old world when our country needed to send every able-bodied person it could find, irrespective of age, to the front lines of armed conflicts.

Bill S-18 legislates the current policy and practice of the Department of National Defence, where young people—and 18 year olds are still children—are not asked to offer their young lives to face the dangers and threats we now thankfully see in decline.

The world is still ripe with hostility and anger, but the type of warfare and the types of enemies we now face are different.

Bill S-18 will also put Canada in compliance with the recently negotiated optional protocol to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 and has been ratified by 191 countries. I am proud that the former Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney was an important actor in these negotiations.

I have spoken in this House in the last two nights and I have seen a House of Commons seized with issues of political concern affecting a small percentage of our country's population. I am, therefore, especially proud to stand here tonight to offer my support and the support of the Progressive Conservative Party for Bill S-18, as I know that we are doing a great measure of good for our nation as a whole and for all of our young people.

Members of the House know very well that I had brothers who fought in the second world war. I will never forget the day that my five brothers came home. My mother was standing in the kitchen and I was a tiny little girl of six years old. They said “Mom, we all signed up today”. She looked at them, and I can still see her little face when she said “Oh, but not Glenny”, and they said “Yes, Mom, Glenny too”.

Glenny was my youngest brother. Glenny would have been one of the ones who would have been protected under this act. He was in the armed forces throughout all of the conflict in the second world war, but God was kind to us and brought Glenny back home.

I am so pleased to see Bill S-18 in the House tonight. Bill S-18 will not end war, but it will end war for our young people under the age of 18. It will keep us from placing our youngest into harm's way at a time of crisis when our judgment might not be the very best.

As I said, we may not be doing more here tonight than confirming the existing practice of our armed forces, but we may exit these doors tonight knowing that what we have done is both noble and right for all of our people.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance would like to change the subject to something dealing with the economy instead of dealing with whether or not they are going to take a pension.

I want the member to know that when Brian Mulroney became the Prime Minister there was a $39 billion debt that was left to him by Pierre Elliot Trudeau. A $39 billion debt was left to the PC Party by Pierre Elliot Trudeau and no one even talks about it.

Back in the maritimes there is no prayer for the Canadian Alliance because our people understand the different regions of Canada and that different needs in different regions must be addressed. I look at the flip-flops that have come from members of the official opposition, and they even flip-flop on their own name. They flip-flop on everything. They flipped out of the pension plan. Now they would like to flip-flop back into the pension plan. They flipped out from the Reform Party name and went to another name and I believe they said it was CCRAP. We did not say it; they said it. Now they are down to Canadian Alliance. They are flip-flopping all over the place. The stability is gone. People have seen it and we know that.

When it comes to the pension plan, certainly as our House leader stated tonight, we feel they should all have had a pension. Certainly they should have been in the pension plan. There is no question about it. There is no reason in the world for them not to be in it. We could change it so that no one gets a pension until a certain age. It was 60 for me. Now it is down to 55 and the majority of the people do not get one when they leave here.

There have been major changes that have come about. In the class of 1988 the immediate pension was about $37,000. Now the immediate pension is around $18,000 or $19,000. That is only since the class of 1993. There have been major changes and people in all communities across the nation respect that.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague that when it comes to the maritime provinces and Newfoundland we have absolutely nothing to worry about in the next election because the people will not vote for the official opposition. The member does not even have to worry about that. The opposition got only 2% of the vote in Newfoundland.

Should there be a recall? Certainly there should be a recall if any one of them joins in the pension plan. We should be watching that on both sides of the House. We can look at the comments they made. On November 2, 1999, they said that 34 Reform MPs, including all second term Reformers from Alberta, fought for, won and exercised the right to opt out of the MPs pension plan. However, reflecting on the difficulty of going without a pension does not mean any of these principled MPs have changed their minds. In any event they could not legally opt back into the plan even if they wanted to at that time.

They can opt into the plan now. We certainly will be watching to see who opts in to the plan in view of the statements that have been made in the House about everyone else who has been part of the pension plan.

When I ran in 1993 I did not even know there was a pension. I never got a pension after 18 years at the local level. I never knew there was a pension plan up here. I did not run for a pension. I would not have dreamed that there was a pension. My hon. colleague asked me about the candidates who are running to be the leader of the Canadian Alliance. There is one and that is the person who was the leader of the Reform Party who stated just this week, and I believe it is in Quorum , that if he becomes the leader none of them will be able to take the MPs pension because he will not allow it. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, as usual the comments of members of the official opposition do not surprise me, but I will inform them of what it was like in my riding when we were in government.

When we were in government we had 4,000 men working at our shipyard, contributing to our economy and educating their young people. It was a beautiful time for our city. We also had a sugar refinery which dates back to 1903 with over 300 men working. It is closing at the end of this month. We had VIA Canada with over 300 men working. None of them had to go to the United States to work. They had their dignity. I have to say it was about the best time I had ever seen in Saint John, New Brunswick. I have nothing negative to say about our people when they were in power. They did an excellent job.

I read the comments that have been made. People will never forget the comments made in the House of Commons about everyone who sits in the House and whether or not they will take a pension. In the next election the comments that were made here will certainly be repeated. There is no question about that, but they will be repeated by other parties. They will remind the people of the statements that have been made.

This is not what one does. One does not rise in the House of Commons to say the derogatory things that were said about all other members. I look at our members who have contributed so much to try to stabilize the foundation of our country for our young people. Yet Reformers say we should never have a pension at age 55.

We lost one member of the House before she became 55 years of age. All kinds of nasty things can be said but the people do not appreciate that. The people do not want that and the people will never forgive members of the official opposition for the things they have said.