Debates of April 3rd, 1995

Presence In Gallery

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

At the same time colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Madam Haizhen Zhou, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jiangsu Provincial People's Congress, Nanjing China, and her accompanying delegation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Canada Social Transfer

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with its Canada social transfer, the federal government claimed it was giving the provinces greater autonomy and flexibility with respect to social programs. But in implementing this Canada social transfer, Ottawa is set to impose national standards for social assistance and post-secondary education, totally disregarding provincial jurisdiction over these areas.

How can the Prime Minister talk about flexible federalism when his government is not only withdrawing from social programs but also threatening to further penalize those provinces that do not comply with the new national standards, which amounts to imposing its views while at the same time denying provincial jurisdiction over social programs?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we plan to do is to ensure that adequate services are provided to all Canadians. The hon. member should have noticed that there are ongoing consultations among the provinces and between the federal government and the provinces to ensure harmonization from coast to coast. This will give Canadians access to acceptable and adaptable services wherever they go in the country.

There is already a high level of co-operation among the provinces. The role of the federal government is to ensure that the agreements reached are as uniform as possible so that people can move freely across the country.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister have the gall to ask the provinces to make up the shortfall resulting from the federal government's withdrawal, while at the same time relegating them to a mere advisory role in developing new and much more restrictive national standards, particularly with respect to health?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, health is covered by legislation. The five major conditions governing health care in Canada-universality, portability and the rest-are in the act. There is a clear commitment by this Parliament with respect to maintaining these five principles.

As for their implementation, discussions are under way between the Minister of Health and her counterparts. We are looking for the best solutions. If services are to be accessible to all Canadians, when Canadians travel across the country, whether on vacation or business, they must be able to rely on the same services in other provinces as in their own. Everyone agrees that Canada's health system is one of the best in the world. We must ensure that it remains that way as much as possible.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that, for him, flexible federalism means that Ottawa is responsible for social programs and the conditions under which these programs are provided to Canadians, while the provinces are concerned only with their administration, when they are facing enormous financial difficulties following his government's withdrawal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that all these things are done all the time in consultation and collaboration with the provinces.

We have many meetings with them trying to co-ordinate the actions of all the governments so the people of Canada can have very good services in health, education and in the welfare system.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Human Resources Development continues to claim, and I quote: "That is the whole point of consolidating the existing transfer system, to give the provinces the freedom of choice to look at programming which suits the individual needs of their own areas. At the same time, it is a national program. There are basic conditions and those conditions must be met".

Does the Prime Minister realize that this federalism, based on the imposition of national standards, is radically opposed to Quebec's wish to have control over the intervention tools, particularly in the manpower training sector?

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

Mr. Speaker, not at all. Under the proposed consolidated transfer the provinces will have a great deal of flexibility in choosing priorities as to which issues they wish to handle and how they wish to handle them.

Moreover, as we have put in the omnibus bill, there are some basic fundamental principles such as those contained presently in the Canada Health Act or those presently in the Canada assistance plan which protect residency requirements that provide the bear minimum requirements we expect the provinces to adhere to.

When it comes to choosing programs or priorities it is up to the provinces. We are giving them the flexibility to make those as opposed to many of the restrictions that held back provinces from doing the kind of innovative work they wanted to do which was clearly and explicitly put forward as one of the assessments and recommendations from the House of Commons committee which assessed this problem as part of the social review.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position includes two components. The first one talks about flexibility, while the second one provides that, if necessary, national standards will be applied to other social programs.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to convene a federal-provincial conference to inform the provinces that, from now on, his government will impose its views, not through its spending power, but by making deeper cuts in the transfers, if the national standards are not complied with?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development will consult the provinces on his reforms. We are currently reviewing the committee report on this issue. In the coming weeks and months, the minister will hold bilateral meetings with his provincial counterparts.

If necessary, and if he feels that it is everyone's wish to have a meeting of federal and provincial ministers, I am sure that the Minister of Human Resources Development will have no objection. Consultations will take place. We do not intend to act unilaterally. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to make sure that adequate services are provided to all Canadians.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, baseball is back and so am I. We will play some hardball.

On March 13, while I was away, I became a reluctant member of the Liberal's pork pension for life club, a club that will give the Deputy Prime Minister over $2 million, my immigration minister friend over $3 million and the new president of the CBC, Perrin Beatty, over $5 million.

I want to opt out of this ludicrous plan. Yet under government guidelines I am trapped at the trough.

Will the government extend the opting out clause to include MPs with six or more years service, not just new MPs as it says?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to see the hon. member back and in good health. She is sometimes better than her leader, so we are happy to have her here.

For the last six years that she has been here she has not minded being trapped. Now that she knows she is trapped she wants to get out. It is kind of a coincidence because we never heard about that when she was to be trapped.

This is a subject I find terribly disappointing. As of tomorrow I will have been a member of Parliament for 32 years. I have contributed to the pension plan 15 years too many. What I do not like about that kind of question is the implication that when one is a member of Parliament one does not earn every cent for the service one renders to one's constituents and the people of Canada.

When I see good members of Parliament like her downgrading her own value by telling people she is overpaid, I must tell her she is not overpaid. None of us is overpaid. Concerning those who are overpaid, the people of Canada will do the right thing and kick them out in the next election.

I find it ridiculous for the Reform Party to think that members of Parliament, who make half the salary of the lowest paid hockey players in the NHL, are overpaid.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about pensions here, not pay. It is hardly any surprise to the Prime Minister that I have been talking about MP pensions. I have spoken about this for six years.

The ratio is that for every dollar I and other members in the House contribute the government is putting in six to seven dollars. That is the problem people have. We are locked into this pension plan.

I want to opt out, the voters in Beaver River want me to opt out and the Canadian taxpayers probably want all of us to opt out or at least make it fair. It is up to the government to find a way. Like the songwriter, I am saying please release me, let me go.

Why will the government not go beyond what the President of the Treasury Board said and make more than cosmetic changes, real changes to the MP pension plan?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not want a pension, she wants a pay increase. The commission said that at this time perhaps the ideal situation would be to give a better salary to MPs and reduce their pensions. However, at this time the salaries of bureaucrats and all other government employees in Canada have been frozen.

Members of Parliament and the public service have had no increase for the last three and a half years. Perhaps in the package they were overpaid in terms of pension but they are certainly underpaid in terms of salary. The balance is pretty good for those who are very good members of Parliament. In my judgment there are very few members on my side who are not earning every cent they are paid.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said it cannot let all MPs opt out because it needs to protect the stability of the pension plan.

The only things the government is trying to protect are the lavish payouts to the Liberal frontbenchers, of whom there are many. Perhaps their noses are firmly planted in the trough. Pay and pension are different things. Let us bring them into line.

Will the government let the Deputy Prime Minister, the immigration minister, the fisheries minister, the finance minister and even the Prime Minister opt out of this lavish pension plan when they have six or more years of service, yes or no?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have served here for many years. The pension that will be paid to me is something I have earned serving the people of Canada.

In many ridings I see directors of hospitals and chiefs of police and dozens of other people being paid out of public money making more than members of Parliament. I am not ashamed to face the people in my riding and tell them what I earn and what members of the House earn.

Some people want to score cheap political points because they cannot get the support of the people on the real problems of the nation.

Fisheries

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister claims that negotiations between Canada and the European Union are progressing at a rate that leads us to conclude that an agreement is imminent. However, we are witnessing a hardening of the position of spokespersons for the European Union, especially Mrs. Bonino, European commissioner for fisheries.

Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans report on the progress of negotiations under way in Brussels, and does he still maintain that Canada and the European Union are on the verge of reaching an agreement?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

There are ongoing negotiations at this moment in Brussels between the Canadian and EU delegation. The negotiations have made very good progress over the weekend. Only a few matters remain to be resolved in principle.

The member will realize that at the end of the negotiating process the report of the negotiators will be sent to the authorities in Brussels at the EU government and to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet for consideration. We hope that occurs shortly. We hope that at the end of the day, as we have always preferred, a negotiated and effective enforcement and conservation regime is possible.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the items still outstanding, how does the minister

explain the presence of ten Spanish trawlers in the contested area, as negotiations continue in Brussels?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of vessels in the contested area. It is clear to anybody who looks at it objectively that if there is one interest, if there are some people who have an interest in not having an effective conservation regime and an effective enforcement regime, as the Prime Minister has set out as the priority of the Government of Canada, it is perhaps some of the skippers, some of the captains and some of the owners of those vessels.

Any agreement approved by the Government of Canada subject to the mandate set out by the Prime Minister personally is an agreement that would see the future of the turbot species and all other groundfish species and straddling stocks maintained not only for Canada, because this is not just about Canada, but for all mankind.

Government Spending

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Canadian advisory council on the status of women has been disbanded. As of April 1 its president, Glenda Simms, is out of a job. Despite this, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women keeps Simms on the government payroll until the end of October.

Both the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board have stated in the House that if you do not have a job, you do not get paid.

How can the government justify this extravagant waste of taxpayers' dollars?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is sometimes a need to keep people who have been working for us on the payroll to help us finish a job and put everything in order.

There is another element to that. When you make an arbitrary decision to terminate an employment you give some time to a person to adjust to the new reality. It is on these two points that we have decided to keep that very competent woman on the payroll for a few months. We need her and it will give her some time to adjust to the new reality.