Debates of April 26th, 1999

Kosovo

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope what the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois has said is true, that in fact it represents a sincere offering.

We do not know exactly where Draskovic sits within the hierarchy, but we will take any opportunity that exists to try to develop agreement. If there can be an agreement on the side of the Yugoslav government to the presence of an international force that will make sure refugees can return in full security then certainly we will be prepared to support that.

That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister asked me to visit Russia this week to see how we can also engage with the UN and with the Russians toward that objective.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be going to Moscow to meet with the UN secretary general.

Despite what Yugoslavia's deputy prime minister said yesterday, Slobodan Milosevic himself still categorically refuses to agree to an international military force that includes any members of NATO.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House the precise goal of his mission to Russia, and whether he intends to persuade Russia to take part in an international military force in Kosovo?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if we go back to some of the discussions we had in the House last week, it is clear the intervention taken by the Russians in Belgrade last week resulted in statements about the necessity for an international force to be present in Kosovo.

The Prime Minister is very anxious that we follow up. At the same time the secretary general will be advancing the same purposes. We want to see if we can help that process, if we can as a security council member support the engagement the Russians might take, because if they are in support then it may be possible to get the security council to have a resolution. That would be a very major step forward.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us then whether he will be promoting the German peace plan during his visit, or whether, as a NATO representative, he will be presenting a new peace plan for Kosovo and the Balkans?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there is a variety of plans out there. I do not think we need any new ones, particularly. I think what we have to get is agreement on the plans. We have to get some sort of agreement that a common position can be advanced at the security council and at the United Nations.

If we can use our good offices and whatever other kinds of dialogue we can help create along with other NATO partners that are doing the same thing, I think it may help to move the process forward.

However, right now it is very important that there be a very active direct exchange, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked me to take the mission on this week.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, finally we are seeing some promising movement on the diplomatic front. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to Moscow with the NATO concession that Canadians were advocating all along: the need for an international peacekeeping force, not a NATO led force.

What kind of international force is Canada proposing so that the Russian initiative can move us toward a diplomatic solution?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have got down to actually designing the composition. What is important at the outset is to get initial agreement that there is a willingness to join forces to go to the United Nations with such a position that we can all support. I think that will require that again there be some accommodation worked out.

What we want to achieve at this point in time is to work with the secretary general who will be in Moscow about the same time to see how we can lend whatever influence we can, whatever good offices we can, to try to bring that about. We are not going there with some secret plan in our pocket but just the goodwill to get a resolution.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have said that the real goal is a diplomatic solution in Kosovo and that Russia is key to that diplomatic solution. Any naval blockade will only escalate the conflict, will only increase the number of countries that are involved. In fact it may drive a wedge between NATO and Russia.

Does the government really believe we can secure Russian diplomatic co-operation by blockading Russian ships?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is using the word blockade. The word that was used in the case of the leaders meeting at NATO was embargo.

In fact, the embargo being placed is an embargo that is being agreed to by countries from the European Union. We hope many other countries will also agree to that. If there is a decision to deploy the naval force, for one thing, and if Canada participates in it, which is a government decision yet to be made, then that is the kind of scenario we are talking about, not one which would in fact put a blockade against Russian ships which would in fact increase the tension. We do not want to increase the tension. We want to resolve this.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, NATO member countries are preparing to place an oil embargo on Yugoslavia, and HMCS Athabaskan and its Sea King helicopters will be deployed to the region in order to enforce the blockade. Recently a NATO exercise found the Sea Kings operational less than 50% of the time.

What measures is the Minister of National Defence going to take to ensure that the Sea Kings deployed with HMCS Athabaskan are operational?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are a long way from that decision because the military planners have not reported in Brussels to the NATO council.

When NATO makes a decision of course Canada has to be part of making that decision and part of determining whether we even deploy HMCS Athabaskan . However, if we do, it will be fully equipped and ready to go and the Sea King helicopters will be performing quite well.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Sea Kings have a maintenance routine that is probably second to none, the Sea Kings are still only available less than 50% of the time and their anti-submarine warfare mission system is prone to failure when they do fly.

The Serbian navy has four diesel electric submarines available to engage NATO ships. What steps is the government taking to provide our ships with effective helicopters for anti-submarine warfare?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said on many occasions that the Sea Kings are well maintained and continue to serve the needs of the Canadian forces. There is also a procurement strategy being finalized by the government with respect to the purchase of the replacement helicopter when the Sea King's day is done.

Pensions

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first the government stiffed the public for billions on the Canadian pension plan. Then it raided the overpayment of $26 billion in the employment insurance fund. Now it is after the $30 billion public service pension plan.

Why does the government not admit that this is all about raiding people's retirement and insurance nest eggs so that the Liberals can pad their own election slush fund?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a member of the Reform Party, I would really be ashamed. It is the party that said it would defend the rights of the taxpayers.

This money belongs to the taxpayers. The government will give the pensioners everything it has promised them by law. The government will give every public servant every benefit and more, that they are guaranteed by law.

During the life of the plan, it is the taxpayers who have paid all the deficits. This surplus belongs to the taxpayers.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that if he were a member of the Reform Party we would be ashamed.

The bill has over 200 pages and deals with a surplus of $30 billion. It affects 300,000 employees and 30 million Canadians.

If the government is so convinced that the bill is fair, I would like to know why is it moving closure on this? What is it afraid of?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, once again the lawyers, the actuaries, the accountants and the auditor general all say that this surplus belongs to the taxpayers.

The Reform Party, of all parties, the party that says it is dedicated to the taxpayers, how does it dare want to take that money away from those it truly and legally belongs to, the taxpayers? How does it dare do this?

Young Offenders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, after an exhaustive review of the young offenders bill by the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Quebec Minister of Public Security, and the Minister responsible for Youth, it is quite obvious that the bill will have a negative impact on the Quebec model, which has worked well overall.

Does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that, as the bill stands at present, Ottawa is not leaving Quebec or the provinces any opportunity to withdraw from the adult system the cases of young people they would very much like to exclude from it?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the comment made by the hon. member.

Throughout the entire process of reform of the youth justice system we have acknowledged the fact that there are diverse needs and pressures within this country and that Quebec has chosen to approach the concerns of young offenders in a certain way. This legislation, I am convinced, provides Quebec with the flexibility to continue with its approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in talking about flexibility when, in the opinion of experts, lawyers and everyone else working in the field in Quebec, there is no flexibility.

In that case, I would ask the minister: would she accept amendments ensuring the clear and unambiguous exclusion of Quebec from the application of the young offenders legislation, as proposed?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is clear. It provides the province of Quebec or other provinces or territories with flexibility to pursue diverse approaches to dealing with the concerns and pressures of young offenders. If the hon. member disagrees, I am sure he and I will continue this debate in committee.

Pensions

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year the government passed a law which said that a surplus cannot be taken from a pension plan without a two-thirds majority vote of the employees. Now the government is rushing through a bill which will give it the authority to take the entire surplus from the civil service pension plan, over the objections of the employees.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why does the government impose restrictions on the private sector pension plan withdrawals while giving itself the right to raid the civil service pension plan over the objections of the employees?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is wrong. Once again he does not understand what is going on.

With private sector pension plans, when the risk is shared between employers and employees, there is a sharing of deficits and surpluses. In this case we have a legislated plan, a plan where the benefits of civil servants are guaranteed by law and a plan where the government has paid for all the deficits before. Not a cent has been charged to the public servants. In this case the legal situation is clear. The surplus belongs to taxpayers.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let not the President of the Treasury Board confuse the issue.

The employees, civil servants, make a definite contribution to their own pension plan. That contribution is going to be going up after the bill goes through, so do not say they do not contribute anything.

I want to know if the government is going to have a vote with the civil servants to see what they think about taking the $30 billion out of the surplus. Will you have a vote or will you not?

[The Speaker]

Order. Hon. members will know that they should address the Chair in their questions and in their answers.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.