Debates of Feb. 27th, 1995

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by a National Defence researcher shows that Quebec and Western Canada are largely disadvantaged in the distribution of defence expenditures. In Quebec in particular, the shortfall is at least $650 million per year.

How can the minister of defence explain that, with only 3 per cent of the population of Canada, Nova Scotia alone has more military personnel and as many civilian employees as Quebec, which is eight times bigger?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, military installations were not built as part of some kind of infrastructure program to benefit various regions of the country. They were built to serve the real needs of the Canadian Armed Forces in two world wars. Since we fought two wars in Europe and since most of the troops left by ship it is natural that there would be a big military presence by virtue of the navy headquarters being in Halifax.

With respect to Quebec, obviously if the port closest to Europe is Halifax troops would not be dispatched from Montreal or somewhere else farther inland.

However, I should point out that later this year we will be opening the naval reserve headquarters in Quebec City. We have been opening a number of small naval operations along the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence so that Quebec does have a naval presence.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all excuses are good to justify inequity. The strategic position of Ontario, for example, is completely different from that of Nova Scotia; yet, Ontario receives its fair share of military investments.

Does the minister of defence not think that it would have been wise to go along with the proposal made by the official opposition last year and keep the military college in Saint-Jean open, in order to help correct the unfair treatment of Quebec with respect to the Canadian Forces?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have been through this argument a number of times before.

We felt that with the declining numbers of the armed forces we only needed one military college in Canada, located at Kingston.

This government is very eager that Royal Roads in B.C. and St-Jean in Quebec, those military colleges, have their facilities used for the ongoing betterment of the citizens in the region. It is for that reason that my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, negotiated a very successful agreement with the local people in the St-Jean region over the objections of the Bloc Quebecois and the government in Quebec City.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, budget day, represents a test of character for the government. Today we would like to find out if this government has the courage to reduce spending and the courage to hold the line on tax increases. More important, we will find out whether it has the courage to lead by example.

If the budget contains significant spending cuts it is obvious to Canadians that the first of these must be made at the top with respect to MPs' pensions.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Which members of the cabinet will be setting the example of spending cuts at the top by opting out of the obscene MPs' pension plan?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it has been made quite clear that when the pension bill is approved by this Parliament there will be 60 days that members will have to consider that, including hon. colleagues in the third party.

When it comes to showing leadership we have cut taxpayer contribution to this pension plan by fully one-third, $3.3 million, and we are showing leadership in expenditure reduction.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the test of the courage of these remarks is not whether they make sense in this House but whether they will make sense in the constituencies.

The Canada pension plan, according to the government's own report, will be wiped out in 20 years unless there are significant increases in contributions. While Canadians' pensions are being put at risk the financial security of senior ministers and MPs is assured by this pension plan-business as usual at the MP pension trough.

How can the minister stand here today knowing that many ordinary Canadians are in danger of getting no Canada pension at all and still defend pension provisions for senior ministers like the Deputy Prime Minister who will be collecting millions in retirement?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, as I think was pointed out in the consultant's report that was tabled last year at the Lapointe commission, when it comes to compensation levels overall, and it must be looked at in this context, members of Parliament are lower than the equivalent in the private sector.

This particular reduction in MP pensions will make them even further down the scale in terms of that comparison. On top of that, members of Parliament contribute twice as much to the pension plan in many cases as private sector plans.

The hon. member still has his RRSPs and his clothing allowance, all of which he can-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to date at least 48 of the 52 Reform MPs in this House have confirmed they will opt out of the MP pension plan.

If the minister cannot tell the House which ministers will be opting out can he at least give us an idea of the number of members of the Liberal caucus who will be opting out of this pension plan?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is a personal choice and one that members will have an opportunity to make over a 60-day period once the bill has passed through Parliament.

I want to reiterate that there is a reduction in this plan. There is no retroactivity to the plan but I noticed that the head of the National Citizen's Coalition does not think that is a good idea. It is fair that members should continue to earn what they have earned up to the point where the pension bill is passed.

Overall, every member of this House, cabinet or non-cabinet, faces a reduction in the pension benefit, an overall reduction in the compensation package. I think that is showing the leadership that we need going into this budget today.

National Defence

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

According to a study done for the Department of National Defence, francophones are grossly underrepresented among senior officers in the armed forces. The study shows that French-speaking officers are concentrated in nursing and chaplain services.

How can the minister explain that, in the top military ranks, francophones account for only one out of nine lieutenant-generals and three out of 31 major-generals, when his government has closed the only French-language military college in Canada?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must point out that the Canadian Forces better reflect the Canadian reality of two official languages.

Mr. Speaker, the armed forces is probably the one institution in this country that reflects the duality of Canada's linguistic constitutional reality more than anything else. Thirty per cent of the armed forces personnel are francophones, about 25 per cent at the officer level. There is room for improvement and that is why when the postings and promotions for general officer level are made public shortly we will see francophones in very significant positions within the hierarchy of the armed forces.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister has just confirmed that francophones are overrepresented in the junior ranks and underrepresented in the senior ranks.

How can the minister of defence justify such underrepresentation of francophones in the Canadian Forces, where there are almost no French-speaking officers in personnel selection, security and intelligence?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really should take a stroll over to national defence headquarters one day. I think he will be amazed at the degree of bilingual discussion and personnel there. Twenty-five per cent of all the senior officers in the armed forces are francophone.

This will be improved upon, as I said, when the postings are announced shortly.

Pensions Of Members

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal two-tier pension reform is inadequate, unfair and in fact illegal in the private sector. The MP accrual rate of 4 per cent is double the legal limit allowed for the rest of Canadians under the Income Tax Act.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify this blatant double standard in light of the job losses that will have to be announced this afternoon in the budget?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the basic pension plan in accordance with the Income Tax Act is 2 per cent. As in the case in the private sector, there are many supplementary plans where additional moneys are put aside. It is quite common for that to happen in our community.

Let me also point out that what is not common is that in this case members of Parliament pay double what is normal in the private sector in terms of their own contributions. In spite of all that, we are reducing the amount of the taxpayers' contribution to the MP pension fund by a third, by 33 per cent.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the solution to a fair and proper pension plan is simple: Pass a bill in the House that would make MPs subject to the same laws as all other Canadians. That way an MP pension plan would be no better than that of any other Canadian or as good as any plan that is out there in the real world.

Why will the minister not consider abolishing his ill fated, inadequate, still gold plated, two-tier pension plan and make it the same as those in the private sector?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that members of the Reform Party are taking aim at the cheapest thing they can find. Members of Parliament are terribly underpaid in this nation. At this time they are trying to undermine the institution.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

When a member of Parliament is making less money than the worst hockey player in the NHL, half of what a hockey player makes, I think I understand the problem of Reform Party members. They know they are not very good and they know they will not benefit from the plan because they will be defeated in the next election.

Blood Supply

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

Last Friday, the minister told the media that she still had not read in detail the interim report of the Krever commission, which was submitted to cabinet ten days before.

How can the Minister of Health, who said on several occasions in this House that she was anxiously waiting for the Krever report to take action regarding the tainted blood issue, justify that on Friday, ten days after the tabling of that report, she still had not read it in detail, considering that the health and lives of thousands of people are at stake?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I said that we were thoroughly reviewing judge Krever's interim report and that we would provide a detailed answer as possible.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister at least tell us that she made the necessary representations to the Minister of Finance, so that he does not cut into the funds allocated to the federal agencies responsible for the safety of our blood supply, since these agencies already lack the financial resources necessary to fulfil their mandate?