Preston Manning

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the principal issue in MP compensation, and everyone in the House knows it, is the MP pension plan. What Canadians would accept as fair in the plan is one where the government matches MP contributions on a one to one basis.

What the minister is trying to justify under pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister and others is a scheme where taxpayers contribute over $3.50 to every $1 that the Liberal fat packers contribute.

Will the minister do the honourable thing? Will he do the prudent thing? Will he do the fiscally responsible thing and bring the MP pension plan into line with those available to other Canadians?

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

These are the numbers that the minister should admit are indefensible.

How can the President of the Treasury Board possibly justify those numbers to taxpayers or to seniors when the finance minister is planning to reduce pensions for ordinary Canadians?

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to defend the plan he is going to have to defend the real numbers.

These are the numbers: $2.5 million for the Deputy Prime Minister, $3.1 million for the Minister of Health, $3.6 million for the minister of public works, $3.9 million for the minister of fisheries, $4.5 million for the member for Sherbrooke-

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is one of the chief ministers responsible for fiscal restraint in government. That means one of his jobs is to promote the prudent use of taxpayers' funds among public servants and the recipients of government services.

There is no way the minister can do that effectively while at the same time promoting and defending an obscenely generous pension plan for members of Parliament.

Does the President of the Treasury Board appreciate that for him job one in promoting fiscal responsibility is to kill the Cadillac MP pension plan?

[Telecommunications, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister reads briefing notes to answer a question I did not ask.

What we object to is not competition in the industry. What we object to is the process of policy making and its susceptibility to influence by the Liberal family compact. The Canadian owned Expressvu has well established ties with the CRTC. Power DirecTv is part of the Liberal family compact as well. It is time to clear the air.

What changes is the government proposing to the broadcast licensing process to ensure that policy making is open, transparent and free from undue insider influence?

[Telecommunications, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not competition. The issue is insider influence and potential conflict of interest.

Power Corp. told the government to abandon its original time line and cabinet threw out the original time line. Power Corp. told the government not to alter the DTH policy panel's report and the government did not change the panel report. Power Corp. instructed the government to seek CRTC support for the changes and the government dutifully trotted off to see if it could get CRTC's support. It looks like cabinet did everything Power Corp. asked for and then some.

Why was Power Corp., a major player in the direct to home satellite business, allowed to set government time lines and policy in these matters?

[Telecommunications, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at one point in time the policy of the government

respecting direct to home satellite communications was to restrict access to a Canadian owned and operated company. Two weeks ago the federal cabinet overturned that CRTC decision.

The Minister of Industry said the cabinet did so because it favoured more competition and that any links to Power Corp., a direct beneficiary of the decision, were merely coincidental. However, the government also abandoned its own time line for implementing that decision and adopted Power Corp.'s recommendations in that regard as outlined in a memo to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that Power Corp., a Liberal connected firm, so completely influenced the content and the timing of a cabinet decision in which it had a direct interest?

[V-E Day, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the victory in Europe, V-E Day, let us give meaning and commitment to our promise to remember.

Let us truly remember the people involved, in particular our service people, our merchant seamen, the men and women of ferry command and civilians overseas. Let us truly remember also those who served in Canada, including the families of those overseas.

Let us truly remember those who were killed or wounded in action. Let us remember what Stan Waters, a former commander of the Canadian Armed Forces, once told us, that there are no hyphenated Canadians in the graveyards of Europe; just Canadians period.

Let us remember those who were wounded and those who lost their life. We must not forget Stan Waters, a former commander in the Canadian Armed Forces, who once told us: "There are no hyphenated Canadians in the graveyards of Europe, just Canadians period".

Let us truly remember the millions who died in the Holocaust and the millions of civilians who were killed during the war around the world and let us truly remember and honour those who made it safely through to V-E Day, many of whom are still with us.

Let us truly remember that the struggle for freedom, liberty and democracy is never over. It goes on all over the world, including here in Canada. It is not a struggle to be taken for granted.

This principle is captured in the motto of the supreme headquarters of the allied powers in Europe: "Vigilance is the price of liberty". This principle can be captured here in Canada without a motto by declaring that if we value freedom and democracy we must work at retaining or improving it every day of our lives.

Let us celebrate the anniversary of V-E Day by truly remembering the price of freedom was not just paid in the past. Let us honour the sacrifices of the past by discharging with meaning and commitment our ongoing obligations to the preservation and improvement of democracy today.

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister's statements are accurate, one wonders how this program can already be $400 million underfunded because the demand is higher than what was expected. When this program was announced, the minister said it would serve as a test case for the government's new approach to social assistance from dependence on government to independence through training.

Price Waterhouse and now National Sea Products have provided evidence that this Ottawa originated social megaproject approach to unemployment simply does not work. The minister has been listening to the voices of 1960s Liberals and tired old bureaucrats when he should have been listening to the people of Atlantic Canada and to fresh thinking on social and economic development.

Given the problem identified by National Sea Products and given the advice by the government's own paid consultants, will the minister commit to rethinking completely his entire approach to the social and economic crisis in Atlantic Canada?

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that it would appear easier to qualify for assistance under TAGS than it is for unemployment insurance in Atlantic Canada. The fisheries workers with full time jobs are being induced to leave gainful private sector employment to take a chance on the government sponsored TAGS lottery. This effect is precisely the opposite of what TAGS was supposed to deliver.

What is the minister's explanation for how this program, after all the time and thought that was supposedly given to it, could be having precisely the opposite effect of what was intended?