Elsie Wayne

[War Veterans Allowance Act, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-61, but I feel there is something left out with regard to Bill C-61 and I wish to address that.

Bill C-61 will allow more veterans to qualify for benefits and it will place them under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We all know that in 1992 the PC party put the merchant navy men under the Civilian War Veterans Allowance Act. However, many things were left out for them over the years.

Look at what the men and women of our army, navy and air force received when they came home from the war, and rightfully so. They received a clothing allowance, rehabilitation grants, transportation to place of enlistment, war service gratuities, re-establishment credit, reinstatement or preference in civilian employment estimate, out of work allowance, education assistance, treatment for pension disability including appliances, Veterans Land Act or housing assistance, business or professional loans and waiting returns allowance. All that at that time would total $30,590.

In addition, veterans were entitled to a number of other benefits, including veterans independence program, prisoner of war benefits, education assistance for children of the war dead, legal assistance for preparation of pension claims and counselling and referrals, and rightfully so.

The above figures are based on the fact that a former member of the merchant navy would be in receipt of either a war disability pension or a war veterans allowance if he did not receive both.

I have met regularly in my riding office with the merchant navy veterans. As members know, many of them were here on the Hill on a hunger strike. I have never seen that happen in Canada with any veterans who felt they had to go to that degree to get the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

After World War II the Canadian government had the task of demobilizing over one million troops. Some of these troops were offered positions within the military, but not the merchant navy men. Others were offered many advantageous opportunities that were not offered to the merchant navy men.

Merchant seaman Ossie MacLean informed me of how he went to the local veterans office to inquire about a business start-up loan after World War II when he was no longer with the merchant navy. He thought he could receive a loan to start his business like the loans being offered to other veterans. When he arrived he was asked for his service number. He gave them his merchant marine number and he was told that he did not qualify for any of the programs.

Mr. MacLean was there when this country needed him yet we failed him when he needed us. Mr. MacLean was one of the merchant navy veterans who stood outside this House on two separate occasions last year on that hunger strike. He was joined by other fine gentlemen, Randy Hope, Ward Duke, Willis Marsolais and Doug McMartin. Together these five brave men drew more attention to their cause in a few weeks than ever before. Now we are at a second reading and these men feel along with their 2,300 surviving shipmates that they deserve a payment from the government once again. Is is possible to do this? Yes, it is.

I know the minister says that we cannot deal with retroactivity. We are saying he does not have to deal with retroactivity but he can deal with these men in manner in which he can give them a grant. With the formula in the Cliff Chadderton report some would get $5,000 for putting their lives on the line and taking over all the goods, ammunition and equipment needed by our men. If they only went on one trip the report said give them $5,000 but some were in the merchant navy during the whole war. All of us know the number of lives lost. One in eight of our merchant navy men lost their lives.

As I was putting my notes together I was thinking about what it must have been like to be on one of those boats. The Germans knew exactly what they were carrying so the Germans were steadily looking for them. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to torpedo. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to get. They knew if we did not get the ammunition and materials over to our forces our forces could not do anything.

It is time for us to take the necessary steps to completely make them equal. Bill C-61 puts them under the War Veterans Allowance Act but this is 1999. What about in 1945? What about in 1939? They were not equal in those days.

In 1992 when the PC government of the day brought in omnibus Bill C-84, it allocated $100 million to be used for benefits to serve our merchant navy veterans. That total was later reduced to $88 million which would still be ample money to cover and offer sufficient benefits to these veterans. But when this government took office for some reason it put that money in general revenue. It was never set aside for what it was intended to do for our merchant navy men. After being put into general revenues the money could never be allocated specifically for the merchant navy. When the minister was at one of the meetings I asked if they could please tell me where the $88 million went. Nobody seems to know.

However, the Department of Veterans Affairs has had surpluses every year between 1992 and 1997. These surpluses have ranged anywhere from $20 million to $154 million. We received this information from the Public Accounts of Canada. The money was there and it is still there today.

Recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself has recognized the role of the merchant navy in World War II. Each merchant navy veteran has been forwarded a copy of Valour at Sea . This is a book that was commissioned by veterans affairs to recognize the role of Canada's merchant navy in both world wars and in Korea. The letter that accompanies the book states “It describes the role of Canada's merchant navy in the defence of freedom and democracy”. It also states “The armed forces and the merchant navy helped secure supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe”.

Imagine. The minister has put out a book called Valour at Sea which is beautiful. It really is. And he is stating to our merchant navy men that they helped secure the supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe. Our merchant navy men did that. This letter, as I have stated, was sent by our Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The Canadian merchant navy was considered to be the fourth arm of the armed forces. The odds of dying in the second world war was greater for the merchant navy than for any of our other troops. These men were some of the bravest. They kept our troops supplied on the front lines and they braved the intolerable elements of nature to do so. How many of us today would know what it was like to stand on the bow of a boat loaded with explosives in the middle of winter on the North Atlantic pushing back the ice and the mines and wondering if a German U-boat had us in its sights?

These men know what it was like. They lived it. Mr. Speaker, they lived it for you and for me. We would not be in this House of Commons today, not one of us, not one of the 301 members of parliament and not any of the others that are here, if it was not for those men.

When this bill is referred back to committee for further study, there will be a motion that I put before the committee on November 26 last year. It deals with the issue of a one-time grant payment for the men and women of the merchant navy in lieu of benefits not received after duty to their country.

I put forward the motion, as I stated, on November 26 asking “that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the merchant navy veterans be recognized as war veterans,”—and they are being recognized under Bill C-61—“that they receive prisoner of war benefits”—and that will happen under Bill C-61—“that they receive a one-time payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial days”.

When this bill is referred back, we will once again be dealing with my suspended motion. I trust that all of my colleagues on both sides of the House will agree with it.

It is time to act on behalf of our veterans. Bill C-61 is a piece of legislation that should be passed and we will support it. I know many of our veterans and their widows want to see it passed. Many of these veterans are in their mid to late 70s and approximately 13 die each month in Canada.

I want this House to know that this bill and the motion that I have before the committee should not be deemed as partisan and should not be considered along partisan lines. We should not be partisan when it comes to our veterans.

I join many of my colleagues in congratulating the government in its recent decision to compensate the Hong Kong war veterans for their service to their country. I felt that we should have pressed harder to have the Japanese government recognize these veterans and the unacceptable merciless treatment they endured. But the bottom line is when it came to doing the right thing for the Hong Kong veterans, it was done and I am pleased. The government and the House did the right thing.

There is one other thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House with regard to our veterans.

A lady came to see me. Her husband, a veteran, had died. She thought that we would be paying to bury him. It was not until after the burial that she found out the means test used to be $24,000 just for the veteran but then in 1996 it was reduced to $12,000. That was $12,000 for husband and wife; it used to be $24,000 just for the veteran. They thought that she had too much money. She had $6,000.

I looked at all of her expenses again. I went over to the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked “Do you not take into consideration the expense of the coffin and the funeral and take that from what she had and then tell me she still has $6,000?” In the end the department said that it was wrong and it would pay for his funeral.

I feel very strongly about this. There are so few of them left. For us to lower the means test to $12,000 is an insult to our veterans. We are forgetting the role they played. I sometimes wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that some of the younger people on the Hill do not understand the role the veterans played to save Canada and bring it to what it is today.

I say to the minister that yes my party and I will be supporting Bill C-61. But I am also telling him, and I want it on the record, that I will not go away until the merchant navy men receive some form of recognition through a grant.

[National Defence, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence repeatedly claims that the Canadian doctors and the Canadian government were informed and well informed from the U.S. on the anthrax vaccine. If that is the case, how come Ian MacKay, a Health Canada official, said that no one in the military told him the U.S. FDA had repeatedly threatened to revoke MBPI's licence for producing the anthrax vaccine because of its serious regulatory violations.

Once again, who gave that order to inject our troops with this potentially dangerous and non-Canadian—

[National Defence, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the Minister of National Defence said that Canadian doctors tested fully the anthrax vaccine given to our troops. Then on February 4, the next day, he claimed he never said the drug was tested in Canada.

At a DND briefing this week which I attended, the military stated the vaccine was never tested in Canada for use for our troops. This vaccine was never approved by Health Canada and the military only obtained special permission to inject it.

How can the minister claim to have done this to protect the troops knowing full well that this drug was not licensed or tested in Canada?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. colleague spoke about the forces and the terrible problems they are having. Back in New Brunswick we are all very much aware of that.

When we see our military men going to soup kitchens, which is what has been happening, we feel very much ashamed. I feel very much ashamed to be in the House of Commons and allowing that to happen.

In my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick, the largest city in the province of New Brunswick, we have the largest percentage of people living in poverty of any other part of the province. This has never happened before.

When we get up in the House and ask the hon. Minister of Industry to please bring in a national shipbuilding policy, he just stands up and says he is not looking at subsidies. I am not looking at subsidies. I am looking at addressing poverty, giving people back all their dignity and that can only happen if we have a lot of co-operation from across the floor.

I ask my hon. colleague what does he see. What should we be doing to correct the problem we are having with our armed forces?

[National Defence, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yes I pushed like blazes to try to protect our men that were going over. On April 7, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration in the United States said that a lot of work remains to correct the deficiencies related to manufacturing the anthrax vaccine. We gave it to our men in March and April 1998.

Will the minister please come clean with all of us and tell us who gave the order to inject this potential health hazard into 400 of our troops?

[National Defence, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence yesterday stated “They are fully tested. It is our medical people, the doctors, who determine that it is safe to give”—these vaccines—“when they are given”. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspection said there were 23 violations with the company that produced the anthrax vaccine.

Would the minister please table in this House any documentation he might have from Canadian doctors and U.S. doctors showing that this vaccine was safe?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased the member brought that up so we can clarify it. No, it was not the party. The hon. member from my party who attended and spoke was speaking on behalf of herself and her feelings and not on behalf of the PC party. I am speaking on my behalf. I am not for same sex benefits. I am not for redefining the family. I am for the traditional family and everybody knows that across Canada.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if they are here illegally, if they are breaking the law, then they should be deported immediately. That is what the auditor general would say. I think we all agree to that.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, what one has to ask is were they like that before they came in or did they become criminals after they came to Canada, to Vancouver?

When it comes to the drug situation the member knows it is not just the immigrants. That drug situation is across the nation. When it comes to a criminal coming to Canada and becoming a Canadian citizen, then there is something wrong with the system. There are not enough strict rules to protect and to have the checks and balances.

A little man who had come from Guatemala to Saint John was shot in the stomach. He was lying in the street dying. A fireman found him, picked him up, took him to his home and saved his life. That little man lives in Saint John right now. He contributes to our society. He was not a criminal. He spoke out against a communist way of life. That is the only thing he did.

When it comes to drugs we have to take stronger stands. We have to do more to clean up the drug situation across the nation. If there are immigrants who are into that and have come in with a criminal record then they should be deported. We have to strengthen the system. We have to have a stronger system. There is no question about that.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening and to speak on the proposed changes to the Immigration Act. Before I venture too far into the matter I would like to revisit a bit of the history of Canadian immigration.

On January 1, 1947 the first Canadian citizenship act took effect. It was from this point on in our history that we were considered Canadian citizens. This led to an unprecedented population increase of over 40,000 as people from around the world wanted to become Canadian. The concept of citizenship evolved as Canada advanced over the years. In 1977 parliament initiated a new citizenship act. Today, some 22 years later, we have proposals before us to change the act once again.

I heard the hon. member from the NDP say how sorry he was that we were referring to the monarchy. I am so pleased and proud that the monarchy is still part of our citizenship oath. I represent Canada's first city to be incorporated by royal charter. We and our people played a major role in building all of this country. We date back to 1783. There are those who say they want to eliminate our ties to the monarchy. I cannot believe that the people who say that sit in the House of Commons.

I recall when the rumour was flying around here. I asked the Prime Minister in the House if we were going to break our ties with the monarchy. After he talked to the minister of heritage he stood and said “I am not going to break the ties with the monarchy. If the hon. member for Saint John would like to represent us in London, England we will fly her out tomorrow”.

Well, I did not take that job but let me say that I have had an opportunity to be with Her Majesty. I have had the opportunity to be with Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and also with Princess Diana before her life was taken away. I want to say to everyone here and back home that if they want to divide this country like never before, that would happen if the monarchy was removed from the oath.

I say to everyone how important this truly is. I was very pleased when I saw the new oath and when the hon. minister read it because the oath still refers to the monarchy.

The minister knows that my office has worked very closely with her office on a number of immigration cases. We put in over 250 hours in regard to one case. There was a problem concerning a family with one child who had been born in the United States and another child who had been born in Canada. My staff and her staff worked together. There were rules and regulations that had to be met.

After many months we were able to bring that family back to Canada. They arrived just a few days before Christmas. The whole community came together. The little children got off the plane. People had come from all over to give them gifts. Both the wife and husband work. They have contributed to society. They donate their time to those who are living in poverty. The husband is a baker. He goes to Romero House which is a little drop-in centre. People who have no money go there to get their meals. He bakes for them at night. He makes sure that they get the best of food. This has been a very beautiful success story but it took a long time.

I remember when the auditor general came to the public accounts committee. He talked about the immigration program and the process. He also talked about the fact that some 20,000 people are still here in Canada illegally because our process is so slow in the manner in which it is presently laid out. He recommended major changes to streamline it. I understand the minister has stated that with the new changes they are hoping to have all those cases completed within the year. I must say that is a very strong statement because of the numbers that we have.

When it comes to the system, as the auditor general stated, it must be changed with the commissioners. I have heard here tonight about taking patronage out of it. All I can say is that whoever is there, let them be competent, let them know the process, let them apply the process. Let them do whatever they have to do but do it in a manner in which politics does not play a role in it.

I know this is difficult. We hear about the little families in church basements. Usually when they go into a church basement it is because if they go back to the country from which they left, their lives are at stake. Usually they would not be in the church basement if the minister or priest did not believe in helping the little families.

I have seen it, I have worked with it and I know what it is all about. I hope we are able to work out a far better system than it has been in the past.

They talk about the two official languages, whether they should be able to speak English and French. I come from Canada's only official bilingual province, New Brunswick. Our door is open for immigrants. In fact, a motion was passed recently by the mayor and council in Saint John, New Brunswick asking for more immigrants, to work to bring more into Saint John, New Brunswick.

If they are not absolutely fluent, there are all kinds of opportunities with our Samuel D. Champlain Centre. If they are not fluent in French, we will teach them. It will not cost them anything. If they are not absolutely fluent in English, we can do the same.

Our doors are open in Saint John, New Brunswick and our people want more. They do not all have to be in Vancouver or Toronto. They can be in the maritime provinces as well. I hope in the future people will look at that in Ottawa. They have a role to play. They have a lot to share with us.

It talks about having to be a skilled worker. I mentioned the man who is a baker. Bakers are considered to be in short supply in Canada. However a refugee who can bake but who has no formal degree may fall short of receiving adequate points at the interview.

We have to find a way to keep an open-minded approach to judging those who apply. At the same time I agree that people must have the skills that show they can perform the task they say they are able to perform. The test should be flexible, changing in its application but not in its content.

Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things that will have to be debated.

There is reference to same sex families. There are those who will believe that that constitutes a family. I am one who believes in the traditional family. I am one who will always speak for the traditional family. I think the traditional family has been forgotten and it is time for many of us to speak out for them. I really do. I have some concerns about that section which is being recommended.

Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things that need to be debated.

On the issue of maintaining Canadian safety, I agree that we need to go as far as possible. The safety that Canadians now enjoy should never be compromised for any reason. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Although everything is not perfect, we are fortunate to live in this nation.

Some of the more serious concerns I have with the proposals lie in the fact that there are no concrete measures proposed. There are no details for us to study and comment on.

What some of these proposals mean to one person may not mean the same to some of my colleagues. This puts a great deal of work in front of the committee members as they will ultimately be the people who decide what is brought forth for concrete measures.

The PC Party has long valued the contributions of newcomers to Canada. For the most part the immigrants we have received into Canada have been very resourceful, vibrant people. Our party believes that we must have a balanced approach to immigration, one that would not punish legitimate applicants but one which would prevent abuse of our social programs.

If we had a system that would see the end of patronage appointments, and I do not care who is in government, just make sure that we have responsible people there, then we would have a much better system.

Another suggestion would be to streamline the procedure to help expedite the process for legitimate applicants. As I have stated, it takes a long time. This could also serve to quickly turn around those applications that will not be accepted.

In closing, this process will be long. It will need to be thoroughly developed to best serve the needs of those wishing to come to Canada. I hope all opinions will be listened to and respected.

I want to thank the hon. minister and her department for the help and co-operation she has given to me and my office on refugee cases in the past year. I want that on the record.