Debates of March 16th, 1995

Liberal Red Book

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker:

The red book full of promises That we could count upon If Liberals were elected All our problems would be gone. There'd be a kinder Parliament With Liberals at the helm And social programs all survive We'd have no fears from them.

The budget's now behind us And plain for all to see That promises don't mean a lot Without integrity. Integrity you cannot buy There is not much that's dearer For each and every Liberal Must look into the mirror.

But one lonely Liberal Could not have said it better Liberals have taken the famous red book And stuffed it in the shredder!

[The Speaker]

I would appeal to all hon. members not to use props or to rip up props during the statements.

Retirement Allowances

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, information acquired through access to information reveals that federal deputy ministers are receiving special retirement allowances of up to $30,000 per year on top of their regular pensions.

The Treasury Board document points out this additional benefit to federal deputy ministers is equal to 2 per cent of the retiree's average salary during their six best years. This bonus is multiplied by the number of years a deputy minister works to a maximum of 10 years. The document states: "There is no minimum vesting period and no contributions are required from the deputy ministers".

The government has just cut 45,000 public servants from the payroll. There are also substantial cuts to agriculture and social programs. In view of these facts, will the finance minister and his Liberal government immediately rescind this abominable perk, this golden parachute enjoyed by richly paid deputy ministers? Or, will the highest paid civil servants continue to be protected and insulated by the Liberals from the harsh realities others in Canada with lesser incomes are now facing?

Leader Of Action Démocratique Du Québec

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Parti Action Démocratique in Quebec had announced that his party would participate in the regional commissions by saying, and I quote: "We can only rejoice over the fact that our conditions have been agreed to. We are happy to contribute to an improvement of the process. We are taking a constructive approach. We hope that many people will take part in the consultation".

Three months later, he said and I quote: "I think that it is not necessarily clear in the minds of all the citizens who came to participate, because if they had been told at the beginning of the consultation that they were wasting their time and that everything had been decided in advance, there might not have been 55,000 participants". The leader of the Parti Action Démocratique is experiencing a rude political awakening. He has realized, but too late, that he has been manipulated by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.

The Conservative Party

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to read in the Toronto Star that Ontario Tories are turning to the want ads to find candidates to run in this year's provincial election. The add which ran in at least three Ontario newspapers is seeking Conservatives with common sense.

Over the past several months Mike Harris has been touring Ontario, promising to cut personal income tax by 30 per cent, promissing to bring a balanced budget in four years and not to touch policing, education or health care. Everyone knows with any common sense that the numbers do not add up.

Mark Mullins, Harris' chief number cruncher, stated: "I'm not a member of the Conservative Party. The last thing I need is for anyone to say here is the guru behind the package".

Is it possible that Mike Harris' policies are so far out that not even Conservatives with common sense can support them?

Quebec Sovereignty

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at a forum in Toronto hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute and attended by the chairman of Quebec's No committee, Michel Bélanger, one of the Prime Minister's constitutional advisors, Stéphane Dion, said that the worse the economic situation gets, the more Quebecers will change their minds and reject sovereignty.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister let one of his constitutional advisors, namely Stéphane Dion, say that the more it hurts, the less support there will be for sovereignty?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dion is not a constitutional advisor. Furthermore, as everyone knows, I do not spend a lot of time discussing the constitution these days. I am trying to address the economic problems in Canada and Quebec.

I got elected by telling people that I did not want to talk about the constitution. I certainly do not have a constitutional advisor; I do not want to talk about it. I read in the newspaper that he wants to give the Privy Council advice on other things. Personally, I hope that the question will be asked clearly and very soon so that we can stop talking about this and deal with the real problems affecting the population.

I read this article that speculates on what I should do if the Yes side wins in Quebec. We do not even know when the referendum will be held or what the question will be. I am confident that they will lose, so I will not waste my time talking about this.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising, to say the least, that the Prime Minister, who claims not to be interested in constitutional issues, allocated an additional $7 million or so to his own office so it could set up an operational unit to talk about the constitution during the Quebec referendum.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

As a preamble to my second question, I will simply remind him that Stéphane Dion is still under contract to his office until March 31. I hope that he at least knows what is going on in his own office.

How can the Prime Minister reconcile the comments made by his advisor, Stéphane Dion, with his own statement that he would respect Quebecers' democratic decision on their political future?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the people in my office do not talk about the constitution but about how to prevent separation. It is not the same thing. And, in order to prevent separation, all we are asking the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois is to finally make a decision and ask the population a clear question: Do you want to separate from Canada? And Quebecers will say No.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister refuses to dissociate himself from Mr. Dion's comments, I must conclude that he endorses them.

I ask the following: Since he refuses to publicly dissociate himself from Stéphane Dion's comments, are we to understand that the Prime Minister's referendum strategy has gone from scaring Quebecers into saying No in 1980 to hurting them into saying No in 1995?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, what we are doing is telling Quebecers that, with a very good federal government, they will stay in Canada. That is why we tabled, for example, a budget that was very well received by Quebecers. We hope that the Quebec government will stop talking about separation and committees, deal with Quebecers' real problems such as economic problems and job creation, and bring down a budget which addresses Quebecers' real problems, as a government must do.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The official opposition questioned the heritage minister on several occasions to find out how much will actually be cut from the CBC's budget over the next three years. Only two weeks ago, the minister was still denying that any decisions had been made concerning the corporation's financing.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage reconcile his statement with what the Vice-President of Radio-Canada television, Michèle Fortin, said yesterday when she announced that 750 positions would have to be slashed in the CBC's French network to accommodate the cuts totalling $350 million over three years, imposed by the heritage minister?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I checked the information the hon. member is referring to. Radio-Canada, my source, confirmed that no cuts were announced. I assume this means no staff cuts or layoffs have been decided. It is only natural for Ms. Fortin to share her concerns with union reps when she meets with them, but no layoffs have been announced by Radio-Canada.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my philosophy professor used to say when he got a flimsy answer like this to a sensible and pertinent question: "Swine have no appreciation for pearls".

My second question-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

My hon. colleagues, we have all had good professors in our school days, but I do not think they should be quoted so literally in this place. I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his last sentence at least.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly comply with your request and withdraw my statement.

My second question is for the same minister. How can he explain the scope of the alleged cuts to the CBC's French network, when it is so successful that its viewing shares can be as much as three times larger than those of the English network? Is it the minister's new cultural policy to penalize those who succeed?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I gather that our colleague did not like my answer. I am just stating the facts, as provided and confirmed by Radio-Canada, but he refuses to hear the truth. I too had good masters and good professors. My grandfather, who was born in Sainte-Flore, Quebec, used to say: "When you let the ewe out of the barn, it comes and relieves itself on your doorstep".

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Now that we have heard quotes from Shakespeare, a professor and a grandfather, I hope we can hear the hon. members speak for themselves.

Health Care

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Saskatoon the Prime Minister made several inconsistent statements concerning the national health system.

He said the government would maintain current medicare standards and yet federal funding would be tied to economic growth and would drop as a percentage of GDP.

There is no way current standards can be maintained under this plan, especially since the OECD estimates that Canada's health care costs will double over the next 20 years.

How does he explain this inconsistency and how will current standards be maintained given increased demand and reduced federal funding?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the whole speech, I indicated growth in health expenditures has stopped in the last two years and there is already a start in reduction.

The policies we are developing with the provinces at this time are doing exactly what we had hoped, to stop the growth of expenditures. With the growth in the economy of 4.5 per cent last year and about 3 per cent this year, eventually we will reduce it from around 10 per cent to around 9 per cent, where we were before.

That will be very competitive. It is a sign that we can have comprehensive and universal health care, meeting the five conditions of the Canada Health Act in a reasonable fashion. We will achieve our goal. We will keep medicare. We will not scrap medicare like the Reform Party suggests.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, wherever costs are lower it is because the standards are not being met right now. It is a sign of things to come.

Experts tell us health care costs are rising by about 50 per cent and the economy is only growing by 4 per cent. The federal government is planning to reduce funding from 10 per cent of GDP to 8 per cent. That means less federal money for medicare, no matter how you look at it.

I have seen the confusion created at the provincial level in Saskatchewan when governments said one thing and did another.

Is the government planning to offload medicare funding on to the provinces by putting a cap on Canada social transfers?