House of Commons Hansard #215 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, once again, that surplus belongs to the taxpayers because the public servants have not paid one cent of the deficits that have been accumulated in the plan.
When the plan was indexed, that plan acquired a liability of $8 billion and more at one go. No public servant paid a cent of that $8 billion deficit. The taxpayers were in charge of paying and that is still the situation.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, while students are being deprived of money because the federal government is still stubbornly refusing to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, plans to establish the millennium scholarship foundation are moving forward.
With not a single scholarship yet awarded, how much money has the federal government spent to date on setting up this new bureaucracy, creating further duplication?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, first, I must point out that negotiations with a number of provinces are going very well.
The millennium scholarship foundation should soon be in a position to sign agreements that will enable students to benefit from millennium scholarships and thus pursue their education for as long as possible.
I can assure the House that many Canadians and Quebeckers would also like to see students from Quebec benefit from these scholarships. The Government of Quebec and the foundation should reach an agreement whereby Quebec's students could benefit as well.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, is $150 million over ten years not the exact cost of the thirst for visibility of the Prime Minister, who thought nothing of another costly duplication so that his name would be associated with the new millennium?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, it amuses me no end to hear the Bloc Quebecois talk to us about thirst for visibility, when we see that they have even tacked “quebecois” onto the name of their party in order to monopolize our nation's symbols, and when we see their intensive publicity efforts in recent weeks. They have spent the last few weeks telling us about the Quebec identify and surveying us—
Millennium Scholarship FoundationOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, clearly too much has been paid into the public service pension plan because now there is a big surplus of $30 billion. The government is saying “Thank you very much, that is mine,” even though public servants themselves have paid into the plan, too much obviously since there is a surplus. Now this legislation is going to make the public service pay 30% more into the plan that they are already paying too much into. How can the government explain that?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the contribution paid by public servants to the pension plan is a fixed contribution that was equal to 7.5% of their salary. For that price, they got benefits that are among the richest in the country, and fine. Public servants have worked hard and deserve their pension plan.
However, they did not share any of the risk in the pension plan. Whenever there were deficits, it was the taxpayers of Canada who paid for them, not the public servants. The lawyers, the accountants, the actuaries and the auditor general are very clear that this surplus belongs to Canadian taxpayers.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, if public servants are not taking part of the risk, why are they having to pay more? Clearly, there is some determination that they have to take more of the risk. They have to make a bigger contribution.
There are many questions that need to be talked about in this whole bill. It is over 200 pages. Yet after only four hours, the government is trying to shut down debate. What is the government hiding? Why does it not want a full exploration of these very important questions?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague misunderstands the question.
The reason there is an increase in contributions is simply that public servants in the future will be treated exactly like any other Canadian taxpayer and they will pay the increases in the Canada pension plan. What does my colleague want, that public servants pay something that discriminates against other taxpayers? What does she want, that the public servants would pay less than what every other Canadian taxpayer will pay? Come on.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-78, the government is planning to raid all the accumulated surplus in its employees' pension fund. This is the latest in a long series of blows dealt by this government, which is essentially incapable of discussing and negotiating in a civilized manner with its employees.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why does the government not do what was done in Quebec and negotiate with its employees a use for the surplus that would suit everyone?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there is a legal precedent, which goes all the way to the supreme court and which is known as The Province of Quebec v. Villeneuve, in which the supreme court said very clearly that the Province of Quebec was entitled to appropriate the surplus.
It was entitled for the same reason we are, namely that deficits have always been paid by taxpayers and so the surpluses belong to the taxpayers.
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
It is my understanding that last week some Reform MPs met with their political brethren in the United States to discuss border trade problems. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food believe that this kind of initiative will affect the trading relationship we enjoy with the United States?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes all initiatives to improve the trading relationship between Canada and the United States. That is why over five months ago with the United States we embarked on a 17 point plan of action including a consultative committee to address issues before they became hotter issues between our two countries. Progress is being made. We are pleased that five months after we did that, the Reform Party has started to participate.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday B.C. Liberals walked out of the legislature in protest over the cutoff of debate. Even Frank Barton, a Nisga'a band member says that grassroots Nisga'a people have not been heard from. Respected Nisga'a elder statesman Frank Calder has said that the process has been badly tainted.
Does the minister still intend to bring this legislation into this House when everybody we have heard from in British Columbia says that the process is so badly tainted?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that no matter when this government brings the Nisga'a legislation to the House, that party will stand against it. We know that because it has done it every other time we have brought forward a piece of legislation that supports and improves the lives of aboriginal people in this country.
The member talks about grassroots aboriginal people. He represents the Nisga'a First Nation. How is he going to stand here against the Nisga'a treaty when 5,000 of his constituents support it?
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister should get her facts right. Only 2,300 actually live in my constituency.
The minister knows that for this treaty to be successful she must have public confidence and she knows that the people of British Columbia are appalled at the ratification process. She knows that the Nisga'a people themselves are appalled and have said that this process is badly tainted.
How can she possibly proceed with legislation in the House when she knows that the people of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people have said that this process is so badly tainted?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what the Nisga'a people are appalled at. They are appalled that this member, their representative, has not ever met with the president of the Nisga'a tribal council, Joe Gosnell.
They are wondering how the critic for the Reform Party can dare stand in the House, talk about grassroots people, talk about the Nisga'a, not ever having met with their president and their leadership.
Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is about plutonium. Today the International Association of Fire Fighters added its voice to environmental groups, thousands of concerned citizens and an all-party parliamentary committee in calling for a moratorium on the transportation of plutonium through Canadian communities.
Will the minister listen to the growing chorus of Canadians?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week. There has been no emergency response request plan filed by AECL for the transportation of this particular material. Our department has not received a request.
It is up to Transport Canada under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to approve the transportation of these substances.
I remind the House that 800,000 shipments annually of radioactive material occur in Canada and they occur, by and large, without incident.
We have a very elaborate response program and tracking plan called CANUTEC in Transport Canada that does the job well in looking for safety issues.
Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's stonewalling is nothing short of arrogance.
The minister is not a safety expert. Firefighters are safety experts. Their leaders today said that they do not believe in the government's safety assurances when it comes to its plan to transport plutonium. They say the plans are irresponsible and that an accident is waiting to happen.
What will the government do about the concerns which Canadians have about plutonium?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, we have a Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act in this country which is second to none in the world. We have the highest standards of transporting these goods.
There are 27 million shipments of dangerous goods annually. Very few, less than 1% of those shipments, ever spill or cause problems. We have a tracking system and safety response systems which make sure that all emergencies are attended to.
Much of the information put out by the International Association of Fire Fighters is erroneous and does not do credit to the firefighters in the country who do a terrific job under all circumstances.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Judge Fowler of the Newfoundland provincial court ruled that DFO's main piece of evidence against Newfoundland sealers, an International Fund for Animal Welfare videotape, was not an original, that it had been altered and changed and did not meet the court's continuity principle requirement.
Now that the most important piece of evidence of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the videotape, has been judged inadmissible, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be dropping the charges against those Newfoundland sealers who were wrongly charged because of an edited and doctored videotape?
Wayne Easter LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, because this issue is before the courts it would be improper for me to speak to it.
Bill Matthews Progressive Conservative Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Mr. Chris Wicke, an employee of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and a key witness, gave false information, including his business card, to DFO officers.
Mr. Wicke also used fictitious names and addresses and lied to DFO Officer Marvin Oake. He also signed a false application to gain access to a sealing vessel.
Judge Fowler stated that Chris Wicke was a biased witness who behaved like a sophisticated con man. Chris Wicke still has not been charged.
Why were Newfoundland sealers wrongfully charged and why has Chris Wicke not been charged?