Elsie Wayne

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

Mr. Speaker, I also support this bill.

I want to say to the hon. member that back in Saint John, New Brunswick we have a lot of co-operative housing. Under CMHC it has been very successful. I hope that members of the government will take a look at that program. My understanding is that CMHC is cutting back on the program and cutting out co-op housing. We have over 700 families looking for housing.

I ask the hon. member if he will do some work for us on that because he has stated there is a need. We see the need as well.

[War Medals, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been shocked to learn that the war medals of deceased Canadian World War I veteran, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, hero and author of the enduring poem, In Flanders Fields , will be auctioned off this Saturday in Toronto. In Flanders Fields became the world's most popular poem of the first world war. It is now read throughout the world every year on Remembrance Day. Even the symbolic poppy was chosen out of the popularity of John McCrae's poem.

As we near Remembrance Day many Canadians will be touched by the words of John McCrae. I am afraid that this year Canadians may not just be mourning the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian war veterans but also the loss of an important piece of our heritage.

I urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to prevent our heritage from being auctioned away. I ask her to assure the House that she will obtain these medals for the dignity of our veterans who fought for this country and for the memory of our Canadian hero John McCrae and place them in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

I do not know whether I am a lone voice in the wilderness, but I know that I have every port policeman behind me all the way.

With Bill C-9 an attempt is being made to download port policing responsibilities on to the municipal taxpayer. We saw what happened in Vancouver. The municipal police force in Vancouver took it over. It got a $1 million cheque from the government. I do not know how that happened when it has not been agreed to. The local police in Vancouver took it over but found that there were so many problems it could not possibly do it without adding 10 more local police officers.

The government has cut transfer payments to the provinces and the local police departments have been cut. In Saint John 30 police officers have been cut already. There is no way they can afford to take on the ports without more officers and without training.

There should be a marine act and there should be a marine unit in all local police departments. If the bill is passed the boys who are leaving the port police should be hired by local police departments. We should also be making sure they are being funded to allow that to happen.

There have been other examples of major North American ports abolishing dedicated port policing and all have reverted to a dedicated port police.

In Toronto, port policing was absorbed by the municipal force. Experience proved that port policing required a dedicated service and a specialized marine unit. This had to be created and had to be paid for by someone, but they did not have the dollars.

At the port of Boston, dedicated policing services were withdrawn in favour of relying on city resources. Without a dedicated and fully empowered police agency to target violations of environmental laws, the pollution in the Boston harbour increased tenfold and within six months they had to put back the port police.

The same thing happened in the port of Miami. This is happening everywhere. They try it but it does not work.

The Ports Canada police currently appears to be our first line of defence and its demise would be rejoiced by those elements sitting out there with criminal control of port operations and access.

It is very evident from the report that a dedicated port police function should remain. I feel a sense of déjà vu today for we have been down this road before and the amendments to change the port policing aspect of the bill were defeated.

I urge all members of the House and indeed members of the committee on transport to listen to the witnesses that will come before them. We must not allow Canada to become the country of choice by criminals.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-9. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member in the Liberal Party who chaired the committee and brought the committee meeting to Saint John, New Brunswick. I really appreciated that our people had the opportunity to have their say.

This bill was debated as Bill C-44 in the House during the 35th Parliament. It later died in the Senate. When this bill was debated earlier in the House I had a specific concern with respect to the section that deals with the policing of our ports. Nothing has changed with the reintroduction of this bill. The section is still there. But there is a question that I have for the minister.

This government's intention contained in clause 108 of Bill C-9 is to disband the Ports Canada Police across Canada. It will have a major negative impact on all Canadian citizens and port users. With the elimination of the Canada Ports Corporation the requirement for local port authorities to maintain and pay for the detachment of Ports Canada Police will disappear. How could this government allow the Vancouver port police to be disbanded when we are still debating the bill that allows for that disbandment? I cannot imagine this has taken place. What happened to democracy? Where did it go?

I have a copy of a letter that was sent on October 2 to all port police in Halifax port. The letter said in effect “Here is your pink slip, this is it, by the end of the year you are gone”. Those men, like the men in Saint John, have worked for 24 years. And those who have become superintendents in just the last few years are getting a larger severance package than the men who have been there for 24 years. The minister has to step in and take a look.

The Saint John Ports Canada Police service will be disbanded as will be the case for all other port detachments if this bill passes. Not only will well qualified and experienced port police officers lose their jobs, but port and community protection will be lost as well.

The policing of Canada's major commercial ports started in the early 1800s at the port of Quebec with the operation of private police forces.

In the late 1960s most major ports had a security force, but the security force was unable to cope with the policing requirements of the national ports. Smuggling, theft, drug offences, assault and traffic violations were the order of the day. The serious escalation of crime in the major commercial ports was very detrimental to Canada's international trade reputation and raised public concerns for the safety and security of the ports and of the communities.

In 1967 the Cassidy report traced the problem of our ports to the neglect of port policing by port management. That report revealed the deplorable criminal conditions which existed in the national port systems across Canada. This of course included my own city, Saint John.

The National Harbours Board adopted the Cassidy report in 1968. It reorganized its locally managed and autonomous police and security forces into a national force. Professional police officers were hired to command the force at the head office in Ottawa and at the port police detachments. The National Harbours Board brought the ports policing up to professional standards through recruitment, training and supervision. They had to take and pass eight courses, and members became legally sworn police officers.

The decision to reorganize the national police force in 1968 was taken only after study of all other viable options, which were an RCMP takeover, a provincial police takeover and a municipal police takeover. Allowing a locally controlled security force was not even considered, but it is considered by this government today. It is considered that the municipality's police force can take over, yet that report said it would not work. It also said the RCMP could not do it.

With a national ports police force we were safe, but the citizens and port users witnessed a complete turnaround as the ports gradually gained a reputation of low cost and low loss with the change to a security system.

In 1997 the Liberal government declared Canada's ports police redundant. The minister announced that it would be disbanded, yet we are debating it today.

The minister made this decision before Bill C-44 was passed. After it died on the order paper the Minister of Transport of the day still went ahead with the disbandment. Here we are debating it today. I have to ask how the government can eliminate the ports police before the bill becomes law. I have never heard tell of that before. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, have not either.

The minister is saying “I do not care about democracy. I do not care about the parliamentary system. I do not care about debate. I am going to disband it. I am going to move”. I find that incredible.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

I can take her up on her challenges.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring it to your attention that no one can wave any instrument while they speak. I believe the hon. member was waving an instrument while he was speaking.

[Points Of Order, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today when we were making tributes today to Chester MacRae and to Claude Ellis, the House leader for the Liberal Party was screaming across the floor to those who were sitting here. It was not the Liberal who is sitting over here now. God bless him; he is a nice young man. Nevertheless he was.

When we are giving tributes, and I know that you, Sir, have brought this matter to our attention before, I think we should all sit and show respect for the families of those to whom we are paying tribute.

I bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and ask that it be brought to the attention of the House leaders.

[The Late Claude Ellis, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Claude Ellis, former CCF member of Parliament for the city of Regina. While I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Ellis, I have to say the tale of his 77 years is quite unique as lives of MPs go.

Although he was a long time resident of Regina, the city he represented in the House of Commons, Mr. Ellis was born in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, the son of Bill Ellis and Peggy Dawson Gibson. He was educated at public schools and Scott Collegiate in Regina, moving on to teachers college. From this Claude Ellis enjoyed a lengthy career as an educator, teaching in Manor, Saskatchewan, and at his alma mater of Scott Collegiate.

Mr. Ellis' impressive career came to an end at the University of Regina where he was awarded the title of professor emeritus.

Claude Ellis did take some time from teaching to represent the city of Regina in the House of Commons. He was first elected in 1953 and re-elected in 1957, during which time he actively articulated the needs and concerns of his constituents. Even when he did not serve as an elected MP, Mr. Ellis remained a strong supporter of the CCF movement and later the New Democratic Party.

He formed a vibrant partnership with his beautiful wife Bessie, who for many years has been a tireless worker in the community. Together they raised three sons and one daughter, who in turn blessed Claude and Bessie Ellis with five grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

When Claude Ellis passed away on October 1, parliament lost a former member, Saskatchewan lost a distinguished educator, but most important the Ellis family lost a husband, a father, a brother, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. We could only hope that they find solace in the wonderful life he lived and the contributions he made to education and to the public service.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I offer my condolences to members of the Ellis family on their loss.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history a whole generation of Canadians is unsure that it will be able to enjoy the same quality of life that their parents did.

Many Canadians worry that some of our most fundamental institutions and values, such as health care and the Canada pension plan, might not be there for them and their families when they need it.

Canadians know that they can no longer count on the federal government for everything. There was a time when they did, no matter which political party was there. We all know that. Everybody was looking for the government to take care of them, and the political parties were only too happy to promise everything. Canadians have every right to expect the federal government to set the right priorities and policies, and to chart the right course to achieve what they need for the future.

We need an innovative, realistic plan that sets new priorities for government as part of a long-term vision for our future. One of these priorities is security of retirement for all Canadians, and more especially, the restoration of the Canada pension plan.

Canadians are looking for leaders that are committed to maintaining the CPP as a central component of our social safety net. They want obligations of the CPP to be clearly defined. They want it to be put on a sound financial footing, and they want it to be managed efficiently now and in the future.

What is wrong with the CPP? For one thing, it is bordering on bankruptcy. The rapid aging of our population is one of the main reasons. I know that because they just have to take a look at my grey hair. My hon. friend across the way might have a little dye in his—I am not sure—but I think he is almost as grey as I am.

Today, for every person of retirement age there are five persons of working age. In 20 years, there will be one person of retirement age for every four persons of working age. When today's youth retire 40 years from now, that ratio will be just one to three. We have young pages sitting here. We want to make sure that they have a good retirement pension plan.

In 30 years, the average age of Canadians will be higher than the present average age of the population of Florida, with no corresponding adjustment in temperature.

A lower birth rate and increased life expectancy along with a sharp rise in disability claims also puts new stress on the CPP. The CPP has also been jeopardized by inadequate contribution levels and inefficient plan management as a consequence of faulty legislation.

CPP funds, for instance, have been lent to the provinces at the rate Ottawa pays on its 20-year bonds. This is less than what the provinces pay other bond holders. It is also less than what private sector plans earn. No wonder Canadians think the government cannot add.

The CPP must be changed now if it is to provide pensions in the future. Older Canadians have earned the right to a secure retirement. Middle class workers cannot afford to pay more, and I know that because I had a young mother come to me just last week. She came with her husband and said “It will cost us $700 more, Mrs. Wayne. We have two children. We are trying to save every month for their education. We don't want any handouts but we can't afford that $700 more”.

Younger Canadians want the CPP to be there when they need it, and they expect it to be flexible. They expect government to plan for the future in the same way Canadians plan for their future.

How are some proposing to preserve the CPP? The Liberal plan to fix the CPP is an $11 billion tax hike on working Canadians and employers over the next six years. This is coupled with already punitively high EI levels which the Minister of Finance has refused to lower, despite a substantially high fund surplus. Such a traumatic tax grab would have a devastating affect on job creation. This is an attack on the middle class taxpayers, families and small businesses.

The Reform's plan is even simpler. Just scrap it and replace the CPP with super RRSPs. That is even more scary when we remember that at its last convention the Reform Party advocated eliminating the RRSP plan. I do not know whether it has any plan at all?

Under the Reform Party's plan Canadians would be given recognition bonds to reflect the CPP credits they have already earned. This approach would leave young Canadians paying for the CPP benefits of their grandparents, for the recognition bonds due to their parents and for their own retirement savings. On top of all of that, it fails to provide any numbers as to how it will pay for its proposals. It reneges on a commitment to Canadians made by successive governments. It ignores the profound attachment that Canadians have for this social program in favour of an extreme ideological position.

Individuals also have to assume the risk of inflation in their investment decisions under the Reform Party's plan. The disability coverage now included in the CPP would be eliminated.

Both the Liberal Party and Reform Party solutions are shortsighted and self-defeating. The security, affordability and stability of the CPP are an integral part of the Progressive Conservative Party's plan to address the economic and social insecurity felt by so many Canadians.

We set out three key benchmarks to do so. Make the CPP self-financing, offset premium increases with tax cuts and encourage more RRSP savings. How would we meet these objectives? We would increase CPP contribution rates to levels adequate to ensure the long-term viability of the plan. However, these increased contributions would be offset by the substantial reductions of personal income tax rates and EI premiums. This means putting more money into the plan without asking Canadians to pick up the tab and without creating more threats to job creation. We would also make provisions to finance the extra cost per year of seniors benefits resulting from demographic change.

Canadians also need to know that never again will their pension funds be mismanaged the way they have been in the past. They deserve a greater return on their investment. To ensure this we would transfer all CPP funds to a separately managed Canada pension trust as is already done in Quebec. We would structure the Canada pension trust to be completely independent of the government of the day. We would select the Canada trustees on a non-partisan basis, recruiting experts in the financial business and actuarial community in consultation with the provinces.

The mandate of the Canada pension trust and its trustees would be to advise the government on required contribution levels and to select the best private managers acceptable to the industry to invest the funds growing surplus to secure long-term returns.

It is most important that we guarantee all our young people today, not just the ones who are sitting in the House, but those across the country that there will be a retirement plan, a Canada pension plan for them. It is up to each and every one of us in the House to make sure that this happens. Now it is our generation's turn to become nation builders. Part of that responsibility is to ensure that Canadians of all ages and all circumstances can count on a secure retirement.

I look forward to debating this issue in the future because this must take place.

[Frank McKenna, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in the House by the prime minister and the leader of the official opposition party, Premier Frank McKenna will be stepping down effective October 13, which is the 10th anniversary of his leadership of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick.

Frank is very personable and he has tremendous family values. He is a man whose family comes first. His wife Julie and his children have given a great deal to Canada and to New Brunswick over the last 15 years. Frank was there as an MLA before he became leader of the party. He said when he was elected as the leader of the Liberal Party that he was going to be there for 10 years and that was it. He kept his word.

A lot of people are critical of politicians, particularly politicians who do not keep their word and Frank did. He worked very diligently for the people in New Brunswick. There are a lot of us here who live in that province. I served as mayor of Saint John for 11 years, so perhaps I worked with Frank more closely than anyone else in the House. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not agree, but we always had great respect for one another.

We will miss Frank. I am hoping that he does not go to Africa. I am hoping that he finds something in Canada, preferably in New Brunswick so he can continue to work and promote our province. He is known probably better than any other premier we have had across Canada for his stance.

To Frank, to Julie and the children, we wish him good health and the best of luck. I am sure we will see him again.