Elsie Wayne

[National Shipbuilding Policy, October 29th, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I moving that, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy—Royal.

[National Shipbuilding Policy, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate tonight in the debate on the motion of my colleague for Fundy—Royal which urges the government to develop a national shipbuilding policy.

I heard the hon. member from the government talking about money that has been invested in shipyards. The shipyard at Saint John is the most modern shipyard in the whole of Canada and perhaps, in the world. That is because of what the Liberals and the Conservatives have done in the past.

The investment is there but now the shipyard cannot compete. There is no work and it is sitting idle. The private industry people who own the shipyard are very frustrated and are saying that changes have to be made. They have spoken with a number of members.

I rose in the House this past week and asked the Minister of Industry if he was going to look at a shipbuilding policy to put our people back to work. His statement was that the government is not in the subsidy business. I want to make it clear that we are not advocating subsidies at all. We are seeking the simplification of regulations to enhance the industry's export capabilities. That does not mean subsidies.

There are two specific areas where the industry can be helped to be more competitive: improvements to export financing and loan guarantees and the exclusion of newly Canadian constructed ships from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations. For the life of me I cannot understand why the government would not look favourably on that. It is done for rail cars, for vans, trucks and computers.

Over 10,000 people in the country would be put back to work. The Liberals can become heroes. When they do it, we will stand up and applaud. Those trained people are being told to go to Calgary, Alberta and look for work, or go to Texas and look for work. And what happens then? The families come to us saying “Daddy is gone. Daddy is not coming back.”

We have an obligation to put our people to work ad we have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to make use of the tremendous investments that have been put into Canada in all our shipyards. So we are saying to them please, please. We are not saying subsidies, no. I understand the Minister of Industry has heard form the private sector this week to clarify that when that was his answer to my question.

Lease financing has become a predominant method of financing significant capital items. However, the regulations as presently stipulated make ownership and lease financing of a Canadian constructed vessel very unattractive if not uneconomical.

I am saying tonight that we can all work together on this. This must be a votable item. Like my hon. colleague from Fundy—Royal, I would like to seek unanimous consent to declare this motion votable.

[Canadian War Museum, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are fast approaching Remembrance Day and Canadians know that our veterans fought Canada's wars to protect our peace.

It has been brought to my attention that the government is looking at changing the name of the Canadian War Museum to the Canadian peace and security museum. I have been getting calls from veterans from across Canada and they are very upset.

Would the Minister of Veterans Affairs assure the House today that the name of the Canadian War Museum will not be changed and that it will remain as it is today.

[Firefighting, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of immediate information regarding hazardous material is a major reason why firefighting is one of the world's most dangerous professions.

Firefighters deserve the right to know exactly what hazardous materials may be present at any incident. Access to reliable information within the first three to four minutes of arrival will save lives by ensuring that firefighters use the most effective response techniques at any incident involving hazardous materials.

The operational respond system makes it easier for firefighters to save lives, including their own.

I and my colleagues, along with the International Association of Firefighters, which is in Ottawa this week, urge the transport minister to make additional funding available for operational respond's Canadian test sites so that a proper assessment is possible which demonstrates that operational respond is needed throughout Canada.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that there were no political parties involved and that there was no politics involved. Politics was involved, as we stated, concerning scrutineers.

Also, if we take a look at the system that was put in place, the people of Newfoundland were not given an opportunity to digest what was happening to them. They had only 16 hours before the advance polls from the time the question was put before them. There is no place in the world in which we would let that happen.

There has to be a better system. Perhaps the system suggested by the hon. member is the better system.

We have denominational schools and a Roman Catholic school in my city. The provincial Liberal government wants to close the denominational schools. I fought to keep them. We had only one girls Catholic school and one boys Catholic school. It is a boys and girls Catholic school now. We also have one Evangelical school. That is all we have, but the government wants to close them too.

I am really worried about the direction in which we are going. I have to say that what they are proposing is wrong. We have to, all of us, take a look at it for the sake of the children of this country.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

There is a need today for religious denominational schools like I have probably never seen in the last 25 years. We just have to come into the House of Commons and take a look at what has happened here. We cannot say the Lord's Prayer for the first time in 131 years in the House of Commons. I am really appalled that has happened here. When that was going to happen I was on call-in shows from British Columbia to Newfoundland about the fact that the word God was being taken out of the prayer of the House of Commons as well as not saying the Lord's Prayer.

I got a call from the hon. member on the government side saying: “Elsie, we are going to put “God” back in the prayer tomorrow morning”. And I said thank God for that.

Just take a look at our young people and the pressures they are under today. I took my two sons out of the regular school system in Saint John, New Brunswick. I am Protestant but I put my sons into the Catholic school because they had the teachings there that were needed. The peer pressure in our society today is unbelievable. I am appalled to think that we would even talk about not allowing our denominational schools, our Catholic and Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland to exist.

I believe that all of us in the House of Commons have received correspondence from the Hon. Kevin Barry, a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. I am going to refer to the Hon. Mr. Barry's correspondence because he spells it out just the way it is.

He is saying that the new amendment proposed by the government would provide for religious courses which it would compose itself from whatever sources it deems appropriate. He says the only condition it would have to observe in so doing would be that the content of such courses must not be specific to any denomination. In effect, with that sole limitation the government would then be in complete charge of religious education in schools.

We know this country was built on good Christian values. We have respect for all cultures. That is why we open our doors here in Canada, for people to come from all over the world, and we expect them to respect our culture as well, which was built on Christianity.

According to the Hon. Mr. Barry, there would be no obligation on the government to consult with leaders of the principal denominations or any of them. For Catholics religious education for their children in school is a vital part of their educational development and it has been part of the school system in Newfoundland for the past 200 years. To eliminate it because 38% of the population voted for a questionable saving in the cost of education would be a very grave injustice to the parents who wish to educate their children in a denominational school. It was never intended by our forefathers that democracy would be used to crush minority rights in this way.

In the course of the Newfoundland government's campaign, the government had declared that religious education would still be available after the passage of the amendment. Let me say that this could be no more than a pious hope on its part since term 17 as amended provides absolutely no such guarantees.

The fact is that if the proposed amendment becomes law, government will have the exclusive authority and control over religion in all schools without obligation to consult any outside party as to its content.

Just take a look at us right here. Government decided to move in and we cannot say the Lord's Prayer in the House of Commons. What is going to happen in the school system?

Although the government received many requests for a judicial interpretation of the text of the amendment before the referendum vote, it steadfastly refused to consider it.

It keeps referring to the fact that it is going to save money and that it is going to be a better school system. As far as I understand it and have been told, the Newfoundland school system, as it exists today with the denominational schools and the other public school system, rates third across the country. They cannot do much better than that unless they come up to second and first. If we leave them alone in the system they probably will.

The government declared as one of its reasons to abolish denominational religious education in schools that its standard of pre-university education was intolerably low. When we have a referendum and this is what we are telling the people, that it would be greatly improved by getting rid of church influences in our schools, I pray that we will have more church influences in society in the future. I mean that.

I look at the pages who are here today and the young people I see on the streets. I look at the young people who are lost in my own city. They need to have church influences. As I started to say at the very beginning, they need it more now than in the last 30 years.

The truth is that the standard of education for schools in Newfoundland ranks the third highest in all of Canada. The government also informed the public that the cost that denominational schooling adds to the general system of education is intolerably high. We have been informed that the cost of education on a per capita basis in Newfoundland is the lowest in Canada.

We have been hearing from our people that they are going to save money. We heard from Premier Tobin that this is why we have to do it. Yet the cost of their education on a per capita basis is the lowest in Canada the way it is now.

From the day it announced the referendum, Premier Tobin's government utilized public moneys and resources to finance and support its campaign to abolish denominational education. At the same time, it denied any requests from the other parties for funding to assist them. It campaigned as though the referendum was a political election. It did not permit any scrutineers to be present in the ballot booths during the voting process, during the counting of the ballots or to oversee the measures taken for the scrutiny of the ballot boxes. I have never heard tell of this before. No, sir. That is a very serious situation.

While I am not aware of any allegations of fraud or improper dealings with the ballots, it is an old saying that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

I am very concerned, just like the hon. Kevin Barry is, and many other people. Educated and intelligent people over there can see that this is going down the wrong road. It is going in the wrong direction. I am in favour, as we are here, of having a committee. Senators should be on it because they have people there to assist them.

I appeal to all members in this House to not let this happen. Do not go in this direction. Think about the children. Put them before politics and before anything else and keep the denominational schools in Newfoundland.

[War Medals, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has another hero today. His name is Arthur Lee. Mr. Lee took it upon himself to go to Toronto to the auction this weekend and bid on Lieutenant Colonel McCrae's medals.

After a lengthy bidding process, his bid of $400,000 purchased the medals. He will be donating the medals to the Guelph museum where the rest of McCrae memorabilia has been preserved.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage should take note that Canadians are very proud of their heritage and that they are prepared to do anything to protect it. It was the minister who should have looked after making sure these medals were put in the museum.

Canadians are proud of Mr. Lee for what he has done to save Canada's heritage. I suggest that he be invited to the House where he can be thanked publicly and given special recognition for protecting our heritage.

On behalf of myself, my colleagues and all our people in the House and the millions of Canadians out there, we thank you, Mr. Lee.

[Shipbuilding, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

The shipbuilding industry in Canada operates at an unfair competitive disadvantage as other countries around the world have shipbuilding policies that give them bank loans, equity funding, lease packages and shipyard credit.

The Minister of Industry stated that unless you elected a Liberal none of the priorities for this government would be in the top ten priorities of his department.

Will the minister create a shipbuilding policy that will even the playing field for Canadian shipyards competing against shipyards in foreign countries and help—

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I get tired when I am in the House of Commons and listen to members turning around and always talking about the past.

We have people who are hurting today. I cannot help what happened in the past. I want to change things around today for the future.

I had fishermen in my area come in to see me on Monday this week. One man sat there with tears in his eyes. He had his wife with him. They said: “We were loosing everything. We have lost our home and we are loosing the boat. We have no way to earn our living anymore”.

I want to say to the hon. member from P.E.I. that I realize that he has fishermen in P.E.I. as well, but we want to know why the playing field is not equal. The people in my area, district 36, earn only $17,000. That is it. Yet in district 35 they earn $50,000 because they have a longer period of time for lobster fishing. The people in the other districts have longer periods. All they are asking is that DFO please treat them fairly. Will it please look at it, change it around? They want their dignity. I am sure that the hon. member from P.E.I. wants them to have their dignity as well.

I am so tired that every time it gets up in the House the opposition talks of the past. Let us deal with the present and the future.

I ask my hon. friend from P.E.I. will he help us with DFO to straighten this matter out.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

You had better believe it or you won't be able to sit at all.