Elsie Wayne

[Canada Grain Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, nay.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC Party vote yea.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the PC Party who are here this evening vote yea.

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Department Of Industry Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the whip for the PC Party, all PC members present tonight will be voting nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Hibernia, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, politics should never stand in the way of signed legal agreements. I am talking about the portion of the Hibernia oil project that was given to the Saint John shipyard in New Brunswick under a signed agreement.

The board decided on Saint John Shipbuilding because it is an ice free port and because the company has the proven expertise to do the job.

This past Tuesday the Prime Minister stated that he is asking the board to review and overturn the signed legal agreement with Saint John Shipbuilding in order to put it out to tender. Under the agreement the government may be liable for expenses and damages as a result of the termination of the agreement, should it occur.

Is this what the government is all about, cancelling signed legal agreements that could cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in damages? I ask the Prime Minister to please keep politics out of a signed agreement for the Saint John shipyard. The taxpayers have paid enough.

[Trade, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for many years we have seen our access to the U.S. markets systematically reduced by the U.S. government. When Canada signed the Uruguay round agreement on April 15, 1994, the Canadian sugar industry applauded the conclusion of these negotiations.

Little did it know that the U.S. took the opportunity to severely restrict our already limited ability to export to the American market when it tabled its market access commitments. The result is that its market access stands to be virtually erased on January 1, 1995 when the U.S. implements its GATT schedule.

During the 1980s the U.S. government took action to ensure that Canadian cane refiners could not export to the U.S. Now it is the beet farmers who are going to be affected. There are 1,700 Canadian jobs that will be affected unless the government makes some changes.

I am urging this federal government to find a resolution to this problem. With less than one month to go time is running out.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments to the hon. member.

I am not sure that the hon. member or the members of the government realize that the matter of protecting the viability of the Canadian sugar industry is at stake with this bill. It has been brought to my attention in the past week that if the U.S. actions continue to go unchallenged, which are in this bill, by the Canadian government Canadian companies will close many operations of the sugar industry.

In my area there is a possibility the Lantic Sugar Refinery will close January 1, 1995 if this bill goes unchallenged in the manner in which it is presented at this time.

I have been told that little did the government know that the U.S. took the opportunity to severely restrict our already limited ability to export to the American market when it tabled its market access commitments. This deals with the Canadian sugar industry.

Can the hon. member tell me what the minister is going to do about this? We only have about a month to go. It can mean 1,700 jobs in the sugar industry if we allow the bill to be passed in the manner in which it is written.

[Citizenship Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on July 10, I asked the Minister for National Defence and Veterans Affairs if he recognized that additional changes were needed to Bill C-84 and, if so, would he put these changes on the legislative agenda now as time for our merchant navy war veterans is running out. He stated that the Department of Veterans Affairs was working on reforms that would speed up the processing of veterans' claims. I agree with this. However it is not the only thing that the merchant navy war veterans require.

Bill C-84 is a complex bill which amends various war pension acts. By rejecting the principle of equality with war veterans, veterans affairs locked the merchant navy under a civilian act instead of including it under an amended War Veterans Allowance Act.

One solution to the inequities of Bill C-84 is a simple amendment to include the wartime merchant navy in the War Veterans Allowance Act.

The government has said that Bill C-84 is a good bill. I say it is a start. Some merchant seamen and their families are receiving some benefits and that is a positive step in the right direction. Unfortunately it is not as inclusive as it should be.

Bill C-84 is not satisfactory as it does not extend full veterans status to merchant navy veterans. Nor does it provide equal status to the full range of health, disability and income support benefits by the department.

This past March the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs who was involved in the 1992 act admitted at a House of Commons committee hearing that the act was not perfect and contradicted himself by saying he did not see a need for major change. As well, last Friday the Secretary of State for Veterans stated on a CBC program that all merchant navy veterans qualify for all veterans benefits, but this is not so.

After 50 years the present labour government in Australia has granted merchant mariners full benefits under its Veterans Entitlements Act. In granting them full benefits and equality the government has fully recognized the contribution merchant seafarers made in the defence of their country.

During the war Canadian merchant ships carried essential war materials needed for the war effort to succeed. The merchant navy was a constant target for German surface raiders and U-boats. It is no small wonder why they had the highest casualty ratio of any of the services with one seaman in ten being killed.

The current Deputy Prime Minister last week stated that Canada's merchant navy made the seas wholesome once again and kept open the gates of freedom.

After the war merchant navy veterans were officially civilians. They were not eligible for veterans benefits. We as a country have recognized the injustices against our merchant navy seamen and women. Why have we not compensated them adequately?

Last week the government moved closer to recognizing the war efforts of the merchant navy. First was the dedication of the Book of Remembrance for the Merchant Navy War Dead . The book is a lovely symbol of remembrance for the over 2,200 merchant navy seamen who died in both world wars. Second was the participation of the merchant navy war veterans in the vice regal wreath laying ceremony which was agreed to by the legion.

The number of surviving merchant seamen and women is about 3,200 and their average age is 74 years. All they are seeking is equal status, treatment and access to benefits.

I am asking the Secretary of State for Veterans to start the changes to the legislation now so it can be put on the legislative agenda before it is too late. Time for our merchant navy veterans is running out. Let us once and for all fully recognize the merchant navy as the fourth arm of the armed services.

It is my hope that the parliamentary secretary will not just deal with the issue of pension reform which the Minister of National Defence addressed in his first answer. I am asking if he acknowledges that changes are necessary to Bill C-84 and, if not, why not and, if so, when will the reforms be initiated.

[Via Rail, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on December 15 full VIA Rail service to my city of Saint John will be discontinued.

Recently VIA Rail launched a promotional campaign aimed at getting people to take the train over the next few months. Homes in Saint John received an envelope in the mail from the rail company offering special discounts on adult fares. As well, a 25 per cent discount was offered when travelling between December 15 and January 5.

This new marketing campaign is very confusing to my constituents. VIA announced the termination of VIA Atlantic as of December 15 but announced a discount for travelling between December 15 and January 5. Does this make sense? How is one supposed to get a discount when there is no train? Apparently the discount was not meant for the citizens of Saint John.

I urge the Minister of Transport to provide the citizens of Saint John with a dayliner so they too can take advantage of the great savings offered by VIA. I appeal to the minister to save our train.

[Rail Line Abandonment, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On October 20, 1993, five days before the last federal election, the Prime Minister, then leader of the official opposition, wrote a letter to one of his caucus members.

In this letter the Prime Minister stated that Canada requires a first rate transportation system that is able to serve every region. He also stated that the PC government's continued tolerance to rail line abandonment had done nothing to improve the situation. He stated that the Liberal Party, if elected, would clean up this mess.

The Minister of Transport has stated that he cannot answer my call because he has 175 Liberal calls to answer first. In view of that fact, could the Prime Minister intercede and make sure that after December 15 the people in Saint John have a dayliner to Moncton instead of a bus as promised by the Minister of Transport?