Debates of April 29th, 1999

Immigration

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, what an accusation. The hon. member is making accusations without being able to verify the facts. I am greatly surprised by the attitude of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. He knows very well that I cannot comment in detail on a specific case.

It is very clear that, when a person has made use of all the processes available in Canada, the refugee determination process, the federal court, and appeal for humanitarian reasons, then at some point the person must leave the country. If there are health considerations, a medical opinion is always sought in order to be sure the person can travel safely.

Health

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

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

Recently a documentary on television indicated that soft drink companies are beginning to lace citrus-based soft food drinks with caffeine in order to enhance consumption by young people.

I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the Department of Health, first, is aware of this; second, whether it has conducted studies on the health implications for young people and Canadians in general; and, third, what it is going to do about ensuring that the health of Canadians is not put in jeopardy?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and inform the House that the use of caffeine in non-cola beverages has not been approved in Canada. There has been a proposal gazetted. That is a normal part of the consultation process.

As a result of concerns that have been raised, Health Canada is conducting an extensive review of the physiological and toxicological effects of this food additive.

I want to assure the House that a decision will not be made until the results are in and the consultation process has been completed.

Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board keeps telling us that seizing $30 billion from the public service pension plan is good for the taxpayers.

Will it really be so good for the taxpayers if 10 or 15 years from now the taxpayers have to dip into their pockets to cover a deficit in the plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep wondering what the representatives of the Reform Party do with the rights of taxpayers. It was elected, it tells us, to defend the rights of taxpayers.

In this case, the surplus belongs to taxpayers because they bore all the risk. Why do members of the Reform Party, against the lawyers, the accountants, the auditor general and the editorialist of the Edmonton Journal , keep denying the rights of taxpayers?

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

Mr. Speaker, we stand up for taxpayers because the government broke its promise to cancel the GST. It dipped into the EI fund to the tune of $26 billion. It is now going to take $30 billion out of the civil service pension plan. What has the taxpayer got so far? At best, they have a couple of crumbs.

How can the minister justify taking another $30 billion without giving a tax break to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the proof that members of the Reform Party know they are denying and disregarding the rights of taxpayers is that they find they have to defend themselves in their questions.

If we were not right, why would they have to defend themselves like this? They defend themselves because they have been caught red-handed denying the rights of taxpayers.

Devco

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister met with representatives of the United Families about the shutdown and privatization of Devco.

I am very pleased he met with them and was delighted to hear he will be discussing with the Minister of Natural Resources how the miners are being treated.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources take a small step today to reassure these women and the House, and let us know whether or not his discussions with the Prime Minister will be favourable to Cape Breton miners and their families?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, our whole effort with respect to Devco is intended to be favourable to the people of Cape Breton and, in particular, the miners at Devco.

We have, through the various agencies of the Government of Canada, put together not only the Devco package but also the programming of Human Resources Development Canada and ACOA. The package amounts to $550 million which we hope will ease the transition in what we all agree is a very difficult problem.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.

The minister is aware that a community partnership is being put together to try to prevent the complete devastation of our island's economy. This initiative seeks to ensure miners and their families are simply not tossed on the scrap heap.

Will the government look at allowing miners to obtain pensionable credits through this community partnership?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, at this very early stage of development, in terms of the concept that the hon. member has referred to, it is difficult to provide any definitive answers because the idea is so novel and really in its infancy.

With respect to the economic development package in Cape Breton and the privatization proposals for the Prince mine, we have said that we would be more than happy to consider every alternative.

Nav Canada

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

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

When Transport Canada sold the control tower in Kelowna to Nav Canada in 1996, Transport Canada revealed that it had effectively condemned the structure in a September 1989 report that said:

Immediate action will be taken to produce...an appropriate tower replacement.

Did Nav Canada know that it had to replace the tower when it bought it?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Nav Canada is aware of the potential for sightline obstructions at the Kelowna airport.

The parking of large aircraft at the Kelowna aircraft apron occasionally obscures the tower's visibility of aircraft movements in the holding area for runway 15.

Nav Canada has successful implemented sight specific procedures at the airport. For instance, an expansion of the apron area is to be completed later this year. The expansion will help alleviate the problem. Furthermore, Nav Canada is currently examining a proposal to use a series of video camera systems to ensure visibility of all manoeuvring aircraft.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that does not address the problem that Transport Canada itself found, and I quote:

Due to the location and the height of the control tower, portions of the runway and taxiways are not visible.

The control tower is actually 22 feet lower than the end of the runway. Nothing is going to fix this except a new tower and not band-aid solutions.

Will the minister now make safety priority number one in Kelowna, like he does everywhere else, and instruct that a new tower be built in Kelowna?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester is quite aware of the fact that we have been very sensitive and have been monitoring the situation very closely.

If Nav Canada, which is responsible for the implementation of these regulations at that airport, deems it necessary after the interim measures I have already mentioned are implemented, and if they are not successful and Transport Canada monitors the situation, then I am sure further action will take place.

Newbridge Networks Corporation

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Newbridge Networks chairman, Terry Matthews, gave a speech recently proposing a tax break on stock options for employees of research and development intensive companies.

Can the Minister of Finance advise the House as to whether or not Mr. Matthews' suggestion is receiving consideration within his department?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Terry Matthews is a very constructive analyst and commentator on the problems and opportunities of his industry.

Indeed, as the member for Nepean has pointed out, his goals in terms of growth for his industry are similar to the governments. However, the proposal does raise certain questions. First, should we provide tax breaks for stock options for one segment of industry and not for another? Second, are tax breaks for stock options more important than personal income tax reductions?

I look forward to meeting with Mr. Matthews in the very near future in order to discuss these questions.

Pensions

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has some gall in saying its $30 billion C-78 pension raid is in the best interest of Canadians. Its idea of protecting the taxpayer is to spend the money now and have future generations pick up the tab.

If we spend the entire $30 billion pension surplus today, who will cover any shortfall in the future? How can we deny that taxpayers will be paying the price for government mistakes again, again and again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is bringing up a point that is so important. However, he misunderstands the issue. What we are doing with the $30 billion is giving it back to taxpayers.

I will repeat this because it seems hard for the other side to understand. It is really reducing the debt by giving the money back to taxpayers. That is what it is doing. We are giving it back to the taxpayers because it belongs to taxpayers.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at noon today, unions harshly criticized the dictatorial attitude of the government, which is rushing through legislation to empty out its employees' pension fund. Yet Treasury Board figures show that employees have contributed more than 52% of premiums since 1924.

Why is the government refusing to sit down with its employees and pensioners and negotiate how the surplus, which belongs to them too, should be used so that everyone is happy, as was recently done in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government has pension plans that provide benefits to employees. These benefits are set out in law. The government is giving employees their benefits under the law. Employees have never absorbed any deficits, and therefore the surpluses do not belong to them.

One of the primary indications of the supreme court's thinking is a case involving the Province of Quebec, which availed itself of the surpluses in an insurance fund. The supreme court indicated the surpluses belonged to the province.

Tobacco

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

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

As the minister knows, billions of dollars in the new CPP investment fund is now being invested to reflect the TSE 300 index and that includes investment in Imperial Tobacco through its parent company Imasco. As members know, Imperial Tobacco is targeting young people, trying to addict them to cigarettes.

Does the minister agree that it is morally and ethically wrong to link, at least in part, the quality of seniors' pension plans in the future to addicting young people to cigarettes today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has set out a very extensive program in terms of education in order to convince young people not to smoke. That is, indeed, the proper course of action.

As far as the CPP is concerned, the government has made it very clear that there will not be government interference in the administration or, in fact, the investment. That is what all Canadians want to ensure happens.

Devco

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the pension plan for Devco miners is based on years of service plus the miner's age, totalling 75. Miners who have as many as 27 years of working in the mines but who started young will not qualify for a pension. Yet someone who is older and has only worked for 16 or 17 years will get a full pension.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources commit to providing a pension to all miners with 20 years experience in the Devco mines?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the terms that we have put forward in the human resources package with respect to Devco fully meets all of the requirements of the collective agreements that are in place with Devco's unions.

Recognizing that there are some anomalies whenever we have to draw a line in terms of pension or other benefits, we have also added to our package a severance package which is $30 million larger than the bare requirements the collective agreement would require.

Accordingly, we believe we have a package that meets—