Debates of March 3rd, 1995

Pensions

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the President of Treasury Board, we would support any legislation he introduces to eliminate double dipping.

On Monday, the Prime Minister said he cannot reform the MP pension plan retroactively because "there is a rule in democracy that we do not pass retroactive legislation".

Considering the fact that the Liberals applied retroactive legislation to the Pearson contract, public service contracts, the EH-101 contract, the Canadian taxpayers working overseas, can the minister explain why the Liberal fat pack is not subject to the same rules as those Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times in the House why the Pearson deal and others were changed. It was a bad deal for taxpayers.

What is a good deal and a show of leadership is when the members of the House cut their compensation packages. That is what has happened in the case of MPs' pensions.

Contents Of The Budget

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a government member admitted that members of the Liberal caucus were informed of the contents of the federal budget a week before it was tabled in the House on Monday, which gave them a chance to prepare for cuts that would affect their ridings.

Would the Acting Prime Minister confirm what was said by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, in other words, that budget secrecy was violated by her colleagues in the Liberal caucus.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I must ask the hon. member to rephrase his question so that it concerns more directly the area for which the minister is responsible and not what another member may or may not have said.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether the Minister of Finance briefed the Liberal caucus before the budget was tabled?

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington were taken out of context.

She was referring to the fact that we have had the most open budget making process in Canadian history. The Minister of Finance should be congratulated for consulting widely, not just with his parliamentary colleagues but with industry and all Canadians.

She was referring to the fact it was well known because my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had talked about the downsizing of the public service. It was in the public domain. It was not a leak of the budget.

I should tell members that all of us in the ministry were only informed of the budget's contents shortly before the minister presented it to the House.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why only Liberal members had this opportunity?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member listened to the answer.

I have been around for budgets before in other governments. The fact is that the Minister of Finance followed the true parliamentary tradition in terms of developing the budget in secrecy but did consult widely with all Canadians.

In no way did the comments of the hon. member on this side of the House conflict with what the Minister of Finance brought forward last week.

National Defence

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence announced an eventual 20 per cent cut to his general staff by 1998. This is too little too late. Canada will still have a ratio of generals to troops double that of Germany or the United States.

Can the minister justify the fact that even his target reductions leave his ratios out of whack?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very

glad that the Reform Party is supporting what we are doing in terms of streamlining the Canadian Armed Forces from top to bottom. I welcome that.

The previous government did announce a reduction at the general officer level by 20 per cent in 1991 and that has now gone through the system. We announced, consequential to the white paper and from the budget, that there would be a further reduction of 25 per cent at the general officer level and 20 per cent of the colonels.

Contrary to what the hon. member said, this does bring us more into line with our NATO allies with respect to the officer to general ranks ratio.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at that.

Currently we have 12 generals per 10,000 troops in the Canadian Armed Forces. The United States and Germany have 5 generals per 10,000 troops in their forces. With the government's reductions that ratio will change to 11 generals per 10,000 troops.

Does the minister really expect the Canadian people to believe this is a cut at the top?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned two countries in which their armed forces are structured somewhat differently with respect to the way the general officers are apportioned in their tasks. However, he did not mention other countries in the NATO alliance in comparison with which we have a better ratio.

Uranium

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, uranium production employs hundreds of Canadians in Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada. Exports to the United States last year amounted to $500 million.

The industry has been concerned that recent U.S. arrangements with Russia might threaten to destabilize the U.S. uranium market by providing for U.S. imports of large quantities of low cost Russian uranium.

Would the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of International Trade advise the House what steps his minister is taking to protect the Canadian uranium exports to the United States.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken vigorous action on this issue. Back in March 1994 we initiated consultations with the United States on this issue. Our motives are to ensure that the export of Russian uranium to the United States does not unfairly discriminate against uranium exports to the United States. We were given assurances by the Americans that would not be the case.

Throughout it all we have worked closely with the industry in Canada. We are pleased to report that the outcome was a very positive one. We will continue to monitor the situation very closely. It is our hope that it will be an open and fair market for all concerned.

Old Age Security

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to an issue that I and my colleague raised earlier this week in the House of Commons. It has to do with old age security benefits.

The Deputy Prime Minister answered unequivocally that old age security benefits would not affect women who are 65 and older even though the budget plan, a government document, states unequivocally that the basic principles for reforming OAS shall be the provision of OAS benefits on the basis of family income.

How does the government square that response with the stated principle in this document? If that is the answer, what then does the document mean?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raises an important question. It is for this reason, as he well knows, that the federal government will be meeting with provincial counterparts in the fall to discuss the issue of pensions.

It is interesting the hon. member would mention the principles but would not speak to the fact that some of the principles include undiminished protection for the less well off seniors, greater progressivity of benefits by income level and control of program costs.

Pensions are a very important part of this government's generous and compassionate approach toward social security.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague referred to a meeting the government will have with the provinces. I assume this is not improvised and that the government will have prepared.

Are the hon. member and the government ready to table here in the House of Commons studies and documents that the Government of Canada will have prepared with projections on what the application of this principle of applying OAS benefits to family income would have?

I want a clear answer. Will the government, yes or no, table all the documents it has prepared for this meeting?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the member, being a former

cabinet minister, would not know that we are duty bound to meet with the provinces every five years to review the friendship plan.

We are not only going to consult with provinces, we are going to go further, as we always have since we have formed the government, to consult with Canadians about this very important issue.

It is important that the pension plan of this country be sustainable. That is something that we are going to make sure happens.

Hibernia Project

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.

In spite of the government's wonderful speeches, the budget has not put government spending in order. Within the natural resources department alone, the Hibernia project will swallow up $172 million this year, not to say $66 million more in interest free loans.

Why has the natural resources minister not taken the opportunity with this budget to dump the Hibernia project immediately, this money pit which will never be profitable and will only ever eat up hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere?

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows we are an 8.5 per cent participant in the Hibernia project. It is a project that has been studied with clear indication that it will be a viable project when it is done. It will contribute to our energy security when it is finished.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary realize that the private sector's complete lack of interest in Hibernia confirms that this money pit will never be profitable? Do you admit that your government will have a lot of trouble handing it over to the private sector?

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we can do the math for the member opposite. We are seeing private sector involvement to 92 per cent. That seems to be a very strong commitment by the private sector to this project.

Immigration

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is another one of those isolated incidents for the minister of immigration. It is just one of three isolated incidents that are currently underway in my riding.

After a five-year crime spree, including an armed home invasion and drug trafficking, a Mr. Vu Van Li had his deportation order overruled by the famous Mr. Lam of the Immigration and Refugee Board who said that Mr. Li just needed to take anger management courses.

Will the minister not admit that irresponsible IRB decisions like this are putting the safety of law-abiding Canadians at risk?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have showed along with his party support for Bill C-44 which deals with the problems of criminality in immigration.

As the hon. member well knows, we cannot comment on individual cases. I know that the hon. member with his interest and his party will also support the reforms announced yesterday by the minister of immigration to the Immigration and Refugee Board to make it a better and more viable institution in this country, and we know we would have this party's support for this kind of policy.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the changes announced yesterday by the minister look more like a fast track way to let more criminals into the country than to address the way of controlling entry.

Mr. Li was involved in an armed home invasion in 1989, assault with a weapon in 1990, and drug trafficking in 1994. Day after day we bring up isolated incidents like this for the minister.

When is the minister going to agree that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of the IRB is not going to solve the problem and when will he scrap the IRB as Reform has suggested?