Debates of Feb. 27th, 1995

Blood Supply

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken my position as Minister of Health very seriously. We at Health Canada and I as Minister of Health have not waited for the recommendations of Justice Krever. We have doubled the resources of the Bureau of Biologics within the past year.

We will continue to ensure that there are adequate resources to enforce the regulatory powers of Health Canada.

Pensions Of Members

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in his budget speech the finance minister is sure to ask that we all make sacrifices for the good of the country. He will lecture Canadians on the need to make tough choices. Yet Liberals are providing themselves with pensions twice as rich as the best in the private sector. They will get their pensions at age 55 even though they want to raise the age limit to receive the Canada pension plan from 65 to 67.

Is the Prime Minister telling Canadians to do as I say and not as I do?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows in Canada that to be a member of Parliament is a very unusual occupation. We do not come to Parliament to be here for 50 years. That is very rare. There are only two of us who have been here pretty long: the Solicitor General and myself. The average stay in the House is less than six years. That is a reality people understand.

We have said to the Canadian people very clearly in the red book what we were to do. We went even further than that and we campaigned on that.

I understand members of the Reform Party tried to present a budget last week and it was a complete flop because they were not competent enough to prepare a competent budget. Being so incompetent they know their value is not very good and they do not want to be overcompensated.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of rhetoric from the competent members opposite about fairness and equity.

Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why there is one standard of fairness for Liberal members of Parliament and another for the rest of Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think members of Parliament who were elected previously have acquired some rights. There is a rule in democracy that we do not pass retroactive legislation. When people have acquired some rights we respect the rights that have been acquired.

I know that members of the Reform Party are desperate. Since they have no policy except the same rhetoric all the time, they now choose to go for the cheap shot. You know the people who have no generosity, but the Canadian people understand that we have good members of Parliament who work very hard, are underpaid and deserve every penny we are paying for them as taxpayers of Canada.

The Environment

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 21, the Quebec court of appeal declared the federal regulations on PCBs unconstitutional. This decision puts an abrupt end to double regulation of PCBs and leaves the field open for Quebec, whose standards are much stricter than Ottawa's.

Does the minister agree that this recognition by the courts of provincial jurisdiction in the area of toxic products invalidates a significant part of federal environmental legislation on the control of toxic products?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the court of appeal dismissed the interim order issued by the Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

The court decided that the interim order he issued following the incident in Saint-Basile-le-Grand was improper. The court decided not to rule on specific sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The interim order issued by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was declared unconstitutional.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though the decision ends double regulation of toxic products, will the minister confirm the statement by her parliamentary secretary for the environment that the federal government will study the possibility of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, the Court of Appeal ruled that the interim order put in place by the then Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, was unconstitutional.

It ruled on the PCB interim order that has subsequently been replaced by chlorobiphenyl regulations. It specifically did not rule on the constitutionality of the application of CEPA. It protected the integrity of CEPA.

I think the majority of Canadians would support the notion that the federal government has a very specific role to play in the cross-border transportation of toxic materials. It did, however, rule that the interim order put in place by the then Minister of the Environment was unconstitutional.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, global warming is a problem that threatens the survival of the earth-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur has the floor.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

I guess I have a fan club in the Reform Party. They may not take global warming seriously but we do on this side of the House. We know that it threatens the environment and that inefficient use of energy is a contributing factor.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House about the federal buildings initiative and what it is doing to reduce expenditures and at the same time get our house in order environmentally?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the federal government has initiated a very important program called the federal buildings initiative, or otherwise known as the FBI program, that operates throughout the federal government in all departments. It is fully operational now. It speaks to increased energy efficiency through the retrofitting of all federal government buildings and installations.

Let me update the House on the success of the program to date.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

As the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur has indicated, while the hon members of the third party may not be interested in energy efficiency and climate change we on the government side are.

Let me say very briefly that we have initiated 80 projects involving over 2,400 federal government buildings.

[The Speaker]

I am always reluctant to intervene either in a question or an answer, but probably two kicks at the can is as far as we go.

Canada Pension Plan

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a good job. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions reported that the Canada pension plan fund would be broke in 20 years and the projected premiums paid by workers and employers would have to more than double to keep the fund afloat. The contingent liability in the plan is estimated at $500 billion, about as big as our whole government debt.

I did not give you a compliment, Mr. Speaker, just so that I could ask a long one. Could the Minister of Human Resources Development-

[The Speaker]

I am always flattered by these comments and I know the hon. member will want to do as good a job as I do by putting his question.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was asking my question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

My apologies. Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us why his review of social security programs did not deal with this looming crisis?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member got to put his question, but it is a question that does not make an awful lot of sense or have relevance.

He should know that the Canada pension plan is subject to the five-year annual review of federal-provincial finance ministers as part of the statutes or the legislation itself. That review will take place this fall.

One thing we have to look at, because it is a matter of some concern, is that over the past year or two there has been a substantial rise not in the income security portion but in the disability portion of the Canada pension plan, which is one of the fundamental causes for the increased outflow during the past year and a half.

We have to look at this matter. It is a consequence of other jurisdictions taking decisions on things like workers' compensation that as a result people become part of the CPP regime. We will be looking at this. It will be part of the review. I can assure the minister that once again, the government is in good hands.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a minister yet.

The Liberal Party looks after its own pensions. I wish it would do this with as much enthusiasm for the rest of Canadians. Not only will this rate increase force an increase in payroll taxes that will kill jobs, but younger Canadians will also question whether CPP is even a good investment.

MPs will be given a choice to opt out of the MPs pension plan. Will younger Canadians be given the same opportunity to opt out of this bankrupt pension plan?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very strange and curious question. It comes from a member of a party which just a week ago tabled its own so-called budget proposal.

That proposal recommended the total abolition of all parental or maternity benefits. This would have totally denied any kind of fiscal support for close to 200,000 mothers in this country. It would have denied and abolished disability benefits for close to 200,000 Canadians. It would have taken over $3 million out of the OAS.