Debates of May 8th, 1995

Conference On Tobacco Use

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

If we keep having language like that this place is going to go up in smoke.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health's own department showed that consumption of tobacco is up by 20 per cent in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick in the last 10 months. Yet our tobacco reduction strategy just mentioned by the hon. minister has been cut by 50 per cent. Why is the government spending $3 million abroad while our smoking problem in Canada gets progressively worse?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he gets all of his figures, but they are not always correct.

We are using the money from the tobacco manufacturers to combat their problems. During the tobacco demand reduction strategy the government imposed a surtax on the profits of the tobacco manufacturers. That is what we are using to combat tobacco and smoking.

Drinking Water

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

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

A recent report from the Ottawa Sun indicated some provinces have not implemented federal government guidelines that regulate in our drinking water the levels of the cancer causing agent THM. What is the government doing to insist that the provinces adopt federal guidelines as soon as possible?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the quality of drinking water in Canada and the governing of such is a shared responsibility. In this case it is a shared responsibility among provinces, territories and municipalities.

The federal government does work with the provincial and municipal levels of government to set guidelines for water treatment. As mush as possible, we encourage other levels of government to adopt those guidelines, but that is as much power as we have in the matter.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The auditor general's 1994 report virulently denounced the poor management performance of senior defence officials that is costing us, and I quote the auditor general, "hundreds of millions of dollars annually". However, despite the cuts made at National Defence, four new assistant deputy minister positions, with average salaries of over $100,000, were created over the past two years. Furthermore, the pay scales for the deputy minister and the chief of defence staff were increased by $20,000.

In this period of fiscal restraint, how can the minister justify these indecent salary hikes and the creation of four new costly senior positions at the Department of National Defence?

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

Mr. Speaker, as to the specifics, the Minister of Defence is in the best position to answer exactly how his department is being run.

He and every other minister take the remarks of the auditor general very seriously and take the suggestions and try to work better cost efficiencies in all departments.

We are at the same time going through a downsizing in the public service as a result of the reduction in programs and services, again as a result of meeting our deficit reduction targets. Overall, in the Department of National Defence and all other departments there is a reduction in the number of employees by some 45,000.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the President of the Treasury Board's reply. He is in favour of cuts, yet new positions are being created.

Does the President of the Treasury Board approve of the new deputy minister positions and the salary increases, which go totally against the recommendations of the auditor general, who decries bad habits and the creation of these positions? Does the President of the Treasury Board approve of this?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of National Defence is the one who runs his department and is the person who is in the best position to answer that question.

There are some shifts in positions. Some positions may increase in some areas and decrease in other areas. Overall there is a decrease, which is in accordance with the policy of the government with respect to getting its deficit and debt reduction program under control.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is continuing the concept of double standards, one for the politicians and the other for Canadians.

In the legislation it very quietly introduced one Friday afternoon and then attempted to jam through Parliament last Thursday, it is continuing one standard of pensions for ordinary Canadians and one set of principles for pensions for its members, their very own porky pension plan.

Why can the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that Canadians want her to lead by example and show restraint rather than padding her own pockets with her own porky pension plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, the gall of the hon. member to get up after the whip of the Reform Party last week suggested a 50 per cent increase in the compensation level for members of Parliament, a 130 per cent increase in the salary.

The government has taken a responsible position by reducing MP pensions by some 33 per cent of the compensation package and at the same time setting a minimum age and ending double dipping.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to answer the question, considering she is to be entitled to $2.7 million of this porky pension plan.

The Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, in British-

[The Speaker]

When questions are addressed they are usually addressed to the minister who has the administrative responsibility for it, so it is not so much a personal question. The last question that was asked was answered, and rightly so, by the President of the Treasury Board. He is the one who has the administrative responsibility in this area.

I ask the hon. member to please keep that in mind as he formulates his question.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the President of the Treasury Board, B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell has said that elected officials should be treated no differently than other British Columbians when it comes to receiving pension benefits from taxpayers. Further, he states: "There should be a single standard for all people of this province with MLAs paying the same taxes, having the same choices as other British Columbians".

Does he disagree with the Liberal leader in British Columbia or is he trying to put one over on Canadians at the federal level?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the exaggerated and extreme figures the third party manages to drag up.

It is incredible that the member would get up after one of the members of his party, the member for Calgary Centre, the whip of his party, to propose such an outlandish increase in the compensation level for the members of the House. That is not a fiscally responsible position. His party is not taking a fiscally responsible position on the question of MP pensions.

Canadian National

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

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

On page 25 of the red book under the heading "securing new markets" it states Canada must resist Washington's hub and spoke approach to trade by providing political, demographic and economic counterweights to the United States.

Given those ideals, how did the government come to abandon that policy last Friday when it decided to make CN Rail shares available to U.S. interests which will inevitably pull Canadian export products through its economy and to its benefit?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to follow the reasoning of the hon. member because, as he would know, Canadian Pacific has no restrictions on its share ownership. I have not seen and I am pretty sure the hon. member has not seen any major change in the way Canadian Pacific handles its shipments as opposed to CN.

The main reason for the decision taken on Friday is western farmers and people from coast to coast want to maintain competitive rail systems in Canada. We believe CN on a level playing field with Canadian Pacific is the best way to achieve that.

Mining

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

In view of the strong provincial role in managing Canada's natural resources and the particular importance of mining to many areas of the country, especially northern Ontario, could the minister explain why it is appropriate that the federal government declare the second week of May national mining week?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very pleased to declare the second week of May national mining week.

We are all aware that a prosperous minerals and metals industry is very important to all of Canada and benefits the economy of all Canadians. We attach great importance to those areas of federal jurisdiction that relate to mining such as international trade, international environment and the science and technology necessary to understand and develop policies in relation to those areas.

We work in partnership with the provinces and industry in these key areas. All provincial ministers of mines, all provincial mining associations and the Standing Committee on Natural Resources of the House recommended the proclamation of such a week.

[The Speaker]

This would bring to a conclusion the question period.

Points Of Order

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to remarks made by the Minister of Transport about a question I asked in this House on Friday, May 5, 1995.

The Minister of Transport said I had betrayed a confidence of this House and questioned my integrity because I was quizzing him about a current issue. I did not rise on a point of order on the spot because I could not believe what I had just heard, given the seriousness of the accusations.

Unfortunately, on checking Hansard , I found that what I had heard was indeed what the Minister of Transport had said.

My question is this: How can I have betrayed the confidence of the House by asking the Minister of Transport a legitimate question on an issue featured on the front page of such leading newspapers as La Presse and The Globe and Mail with regard to the government's decision to privatize CN?

The figures quoted in my questions did not come any lock-up but were taken from the comments-

[The Speaker]

Dear colleague, I reviewed last Friday's Hansard and read what was said. I also requested the videotape in order to see exactly what had gone on.

As far as the hon. member's question is concerned, it is not up to the Chair to answer and apologize, but I think that, at this stage, what the minister meant and what the hon. member understood is a matter of debate.

I will take this incident under advisement if you want me to, but at this point, I do not consider this to be a point of order. If there is more to it, I am listening.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

For clarification, Mr. Speaker, when remarks are made which are ruled unparliamentary, can we request that they be withdrawn? I think that is what my colleague wants to know.

[The Speaker]

Absolutely. When unparliamentary terms are used, members may ask that they be withdrawn. It is up to the Chair to decide, however. According to what I read in Friday's Hansard -and if you wish I will reread and review what was said-at this point, I must say that I have not found that the language used at the time was unparliamentary. However, I will review the matter and report to you as appropriate.