Wendy Lill

[Nova Scotia, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia needs to be given equal opportunities under our federal equalization and social transfer regime.

I refer specifically to the need for a temporary exemption of offshore oil and gas royalty revenues in the calculation of equalization payments, similar to the one granted to Newfoundland for Hibernia. This temporary measure has obviously helped boost the economy of that province and Nova Scotia deserves no less.

I also call on the government to increase its support for post-secondary education in Nova Scotia through a bilateral agreement recognizing the extra costs we pay for a high number of out of province students. Our provincial government could use these funds to reduce Nova Scotia's tuition fees, currently the highest in Canada, and to increase the inadequate student aid program.

Now is the time to correct the crippling impact of underfunding on our education and health care, on our schools and hospitals in Nova Scotia.

Now is the time to revisit the equalization formula to ensure that all provinces are afforded an equal level of services and all Canadians an equal level of citizenship.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I must say I cannot comment on that. I am not familiar with that regulation.

Although I have stated that the particular rebate is giving some comfort to Canadians, some of the are things that were absent from the throne speech would have given much more comfort to Canadians. New Democrats are very concerned about a national child care program. We did not see it in the throne speech and we will still be fighting for it in the 37th parliament. It would go a long way in buffering the harsh economic climate out there. We need a pharmacare program and a home care program. People with disabilities need adequate income support programs.

The throne speech mentioned an increase in training programs for persons with disabilities. It is limited to people who are eligible for EI. Many Canadians with disabilities, up to 70% of them, are not in the labour force and not even eligible for EI. Many people live in quite a vulnerable state and are totally at the mercy of such things as increased heating oil. That is the kind of issue we have to deal with.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the $250 maximum tax rebate being given to people who are eligible for the GST tax rebate is a start. We accept the minister's statement that this was a speedy method of getting some money out to people.

We simply do not believe that it went far enough. Many Canadians are now facing a 38% increase in fuel bills and have no way on earth of paying these increased costs. The government should create a much more substantial support program to help Canadians with these home heating fuel costs.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new appointment.

I would like to thank all of the members who ran in this election, the people who won and those that did not. It is an important place to be and I value the struggle that everyone went through.

I would also like to thank the people of Dartmouth, Cole Harbour, the Prestons, Cherry Brook and Lake Echo who have once again returned me to this place.

Maybe I should also make a comment with respect to Her Excellency the Governor General. She is doing a most excellent job and is a credit to her office and her country. I would not like it to be thought that my comments on her speech reflect poorly upon her.

This is the third Speech from the Throne which I have witnessed since being elected in 1997. Like the others, I believe the speech was long in rhetoric and short on specifics.

I would like to use my time to comment on two things which are the skepticism created by failed Liberal promises and the lack of overall vision to deal with the problems facing us in the years to come.

I am from Dartmouth. People in Dartmouth are not usually satisfied with good intentions. They want to know what we are going to do. They are skeptical and, given past Liberal performances, they have a right to be.

A current example of how Liberals created this feeling is the so-called home heating rebate, which is now being received by some of my constituent. People were led to believe they would get help. Page 5 of the Liberal platform said “we will provide fuel tax rebates of up to $250 per household to help low and modest income Canadians cope with the higher costs of fuel prices this winter”.

What has been delivered instead is a slightly augmented GST tax credit which does nothing to rebate anyone. The cheque is being given to people based on their eligibility for the GST tax credit, not on their heating cost. This program also does not go to any modest income families because they make too much to qualify for the GST rebate. In short, the program has no bearing on the ability of a person to pay his or her heating bill.

While I have always believed that tax support for our lowest income families has been too low and support an increase to this tax credit, calling this a home heating rebate fails every test of good public policy or even common sense. It does not deliver what has been promised because there are working families facing desperate economic circumstances but receiving none of the promised help from the federal or the provincial government.

There is also a social division being exploited as those with high heating costs get no help and many who are getting help do not directly pay for their heating.

This policy is not helping my community get together, it is dividing it. My riding office phone has been ringing off the hook. I sympathize with the callers. As I said, this kind of thing keeps them skeptical.

The Minister of Finance said that this happened because the government was anxious to get the cheques out quickly. However, the timing of the rebate only seemed to allow an announcement before the election and then to release the flawed details after the election. I am not convinced by this explanation.

Millions of Canadians are now on the verge of filing their taxes as they do every spring. If the government were serious about actually getting help to those facing huge increases in heating costs this winter, it could have used the tax system to help them when the mini-budget was announced last fall and people would have received rebates when they filed their taxes.

After all, the oil companies, which are reaping record profits because of the increased fuel prices, received help on their corporate taxes in last fall's budget. Their cheques, a real rebate in the form of reduced corporate taxes, will soon be in the mail. However hard working, modest income families in Dartmouth have been left with a promise, not a cheque.

This is simply one example of how the government has made choices under the cover of platitudes. I believe the other modest initiatives mentioned in the throne speech will suffer a similar but predictable fate.

The mention of support for employment programs for persons with disabilities will probably do nothing for the millions of Canadians who have a disability but are currently unable to qualify for EI or CPP because of their tenuous relationship to the labour force.

The building of broadband access does not say how low income Canadians will be able to afford this service, let alone buy a computer. It seems predestined to support bigger dot com profits before providing support to the people who are not willing to line up at community access sites.

The cultural initiatives in the throne speech are likewise vague. While artistic creators still receive no targeted tax relief and exist at minimum wage levels, my constituents and I remain skeptical.

My most important concern is the lack of a real vision of Canada in the Speech from the Throne. Last year we saw the passing of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, someone who had a vision for Canada. He could inspire us. We did not always agree, but we always had some respect for him. He was not ambiguous. He saw our country's problems on the horizon, brought them to our attention and offered his opinion.

The current throne speech has failed to do that. There are huge problems facing the people with which we have to deal. Our democracy is declining. Voter turnout is plummeting. Alienation is growing in many regions and among our young people.

There is a wide belief that the powers of this place have been subverted to those in the Langevin block. Above all, there is a growing sense that the powers of Canada as a state have been subverted to the powers of trading blocks, transnational corporations under NAFTA, the WTO and, maybe worse, the proposed free trade of the Americas regime.

The throne speech is silent on how to reintegrate young people and the disaffected of Quebec or the west into our democracy. It is silent on how to reassert our national sovereignty when foreign companies demand our resources at a lower price, demand access to our water, and demand an end to public delivery of our health services, our education system and our public environmental protections. In my humble way I will be bringing forward suggestions on how to give us some protection in parliament.

I believe the government should limit the concentration of ownership in our private media and restore its past support to the CBC so that information can flow to citizens as ideas for public debate, not just as content dressed up to attract advertising dollars. Any parliamentary package which neglects this aspect of our living democracy is flawed.

The lack of any mention of our need for cultural, environmental, labour and public service safeguards, while talking about new trade agreements including the free trade of the Americas initiative which the throne speech so proudly supports, is shameful.

Has the government forgotten the humiliation which we suffered two years back when we surrendered control over our magazine sector because the cultural carve out in the FTA and NAFTA proved to be worthless?

Has the work of the Minister of Canadian Heritage on building a separate international agreement on culture already been sacrificed to the Americas so the Prime Minister can go bass fishing in Texas or host a banquet in Quebec City in April?

Is the fact that government subsidies to public broadcasters are being threatened in Europe under the free trade rules being forgotten by officials in the Langevin block, or have they simply decided that private media conglomerates should control all information for the Canadian public?

We need to take a stand saying that we are a rich people with a great and vast country and that we will trade fairly with the world. At the same time we must tell our trading partners that this country is ours and this parliament should make our laws, not some NAFTA trade arbitrator and not a transnational corporation.

The throne speech should have made it clear that until we have binding protection for our culture, environment, education and health care systems, we will not expand our trading agreements.

We must make it clear to all abroad that only we as members of parliament are accountable to our constituents. We should be saying to Canada: let us work together; let us prosper; let us defend our country together from the onslaught of corporate power; and let us revitalize our democracy together. That should have been the primary vision of the throne speech. The government had the opportunity to give us this vision but it declined. I hope that over the life of this parliament we can get the government to change its mind.

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments on the throne speech and specifically her comments on infrastructure. I should like to ask her about something that is concerning the people in Dartmouth and Halifax.

The harbour solutions project is a major infrastructure project to clean up the harbour. It will cost over $300 million. Traditionally such infrastructure programs have been split one-third, one-third and one-third municipal, provincial and federal.

Is the federal government prepared to provide one-third of the cost for the harbour solutions project? Major environmental projects such as this one cannot be funded by a municipality. Often municipalities can go nowhere near that kind of funding. Where is the infrastructure program now in terms of this paramount project for Atlantic Canada?

[Housing, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week the unelected minister for Nova Scotia announced funds for the homeless in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. This is the same announcement, of the same money, the government made over eight months ago.

It is starting to get cold out and in Canada homeless people die on the streets every winter. In Halifax-Dartmouth we need youth and women's shelters. We need qualify affordable housing now.

Why has the government held up funds for over eight months? Was it so that the unelected senator could re-announce the money on the eve of an election? Why are the Liberals playing pre-election politics with the lives of the homeless?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, October 16th, 2000]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued in the constituency of Dartmouth for each of the following fiscal years: ( a ) 1993-1994; ( b ) 1994-1995; ( c ) 1995-1996; ( d ) 1996-1997; ( e ) 1997-1998; ( f ) 1998-1999; and in each case, where applicable: (i) what was the department or agency responsible; (ii) what was the program under which the payment was made; (iii) what were the names of the recipients if they were groups or organizations; (iv) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (v) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

Return tabled.

Question No. 69—

[Health, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election the people of Nova Scotia declared that the Liberals were irrelevant, so I thought that Liberal members could use a primer on what the current issues are down home.

The health care crisis is getting worse, not better. The Dartmouth General Hospital will soon be no more than a glorified triage centre and nursing home. There are too few nurses, too few doctors. We have the highest tuition and some of the biggest student debt loads in the country.

People are worried about their drinking water. They are scared about the chemicals in our harbour and time bombs like the tar ponds. They want federal environmental standards that stop people from getting sick. We are all ashamed that one in five of our children is living in poverty.

These are the relevant issues and problems in my community. They call for better programs, not better public relations. They call for representatives who will speak out, not apologize and duck and weave. I am proud to raise issues which are relevant to the people of Dartmouth. So let's rock.

[Civilian War-Related Benefits Act, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today to Bill C-41, an act to improve the veterans' benefits for our veterans. I would like to say that the NDP will be supporting this bill.

I would also like to say that over the last three and a half years I have been very honoured to work with the legions in my riding. Those are the Somme legion, the centennial branch and also the army, navy, air force club. They have been able to deepen my understanding of the issues facing veterans in our communities.

I would also like to thank the wonderful people at the family resources centre at both Shannon Park and Shearwater. They also have helped me to understand the problems facing people who are in the armed forces and their families. It is because of these people that I am able to work at the level I do.

In addressing the context of Bill C-41, first I should express some scepticism about the government's intent on following through with its commitments to Canada's vets. I must say that over half of the claims received from the merchant mariners are still waiting to be processed and we are all very concerned about that. These Canadians have risked life and limb. During the war they worked to deliver food, fuel, goods and people who were under attack from German submarines, facing casualties and, all too often, death.

Every month more of these brave members of our community succumb to illness and old age. It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of 12 per month. Veterans affairs reportedly has 45 people working on these claims but that is clearly not enough. Staffing levels should be increased to meet the demand created by the merchant mariners' claims.

If the government wishes Bill C-41 to be taken seriously by the people who would be affected by it, it should state here and now that it is committed to ensuring that all merchant mariners who are entitled to compensation receive their full benefits and that it will not to turn its back on them after the first payments have been made.

This legislation sets out to extend veterans' benefits to a number of civilian groups with overseas service and would allow serving members of the Canadian armed forces to receive disability pensions while still serving. I am pleased to see this. I believe that the government is responding to issues raised by SCONDVA. Allowing serving members of the Canadian armed forces to receive disability pensions while still serving is indeed a step forward.

New Democrats feel that the government should be doing much more to address broader issues relating to working and living conditions for our troops.

We know that the military personnel who live on bases in various parts of the country are contending with old and deteriorating accommodations which are among some of the worst found in the country. From leaky roofs to cramped, old and deteriorating spaces, Canadian forces personnel deserve much better from the country which they have admirably served, and in particular from the Liberal government responsible for these decisions.

We are very interested to see that the Liberal government has cash on hand to spend $15 million on a brand spanking new armoury in Shawinigan which, by great coincidence, is in the riding of the Prime Minister.

Bill C-41 sets out to ensure serving forces personnel may receive disability pensions while still serving. New Democrats agree that troops serving Canadians by assisting with crises, such as the great ice storm of 1998, or fighting the floods on the Red River or working as peacekeepers in Bosnia, would be able to collect a veterans affairs disability pension while continuing to serve their country. Bill C-41 would ensure equality with members whose disabilities arose in special duty areas and reserves.

We support the legislation as it would extend veterans benefits to certain civilian groups who served overseas in close support of the war effort. This includes such groups as the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Newfoundland overseas foresters, Canadian firefighters and pilots who ferried over the Atlantic, and other groups who assisted the military overseas.

The legislation will provide these individuals with greater access to veterans affairs Canada income support and disability pensions and additional health care benefits including the veterans independence program.

The overseas crew of the Ferry Command assisted the war effort by ferrying military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean from North America. The Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit assisted the war effort by cutting timber in Scotland which was then predominantly needed in British coal mining operations to fuel the war effort.

While Canadians were negotiating the terms of union several years after the war, it was agreed that Newfoundland air force members would be eligible for veterans benefits from Canada but members of the forestry unit were not included in the arrangement.

During the second world war the corps of civilian Canadian firefighters for service in the United Kingdom assisted the war effort by fighting fires in Britain that were created by the dreaded blitz. Also during the war overseas welfare workers, which included members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John Ambulance, served as welfare workers overseas in support of the injured.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is working to ensure equity of access to services and benefits to all Canadian forces members regardless of whether the injuries occurred in Canada or on a foreign deployment. At the present time Canadian forces members can only receive a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension for a service related disability if it occurred in or resulted from service in a special duty area such as a peacekeeping mission.

For Canadian forces members hurt while fighting a flood in Canada, their disability can be assessed and they can be entitled to a disability pension only if they are still serving. However, no Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension can begin to be paid until after they have left the Canadian forces.

These amendments would remove this inequity and allow all Canadian forces members with a service related disability to receive a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension upon application regardless of where the injury occurred.

I have a couple of concerns that I would like to raise about Bill C-41. One of them was raised yesterday in the House by my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. That is the issue of the treatment of first nations veterans who were discriminated against during the first world war, the second world war and the Korean War in comparison to non-first nations veterans. My colleague has also put forward a private member's bill in order to try to receive appropriate compensation and recognition of these very important veterans. This is one area that is not dealt with in Bill C-41 and we would like to see much more attention given to this issue.

Bill C-41, the veterans benefits legislation, takes some important steps to support the veterans in this country. It takes some steps in recognizing the contributions and the great sacrifices that our fighting forces have given to this country.

[Post-Secondary Education, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has said that the government would deal with the issue of post-secondary student debt to the extent of its resources.

Last week when the minister was boasting about having $12.3 billion more than he had expected, why did he not act to reduce the level of student debt that has increased on his watch? Is it that the minister has had a hard time keeping his promises, or is it that he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition that student debt is just a personal problem?