House of Commons Hansard #219 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentencing.

Topics

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:35 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. I am going to listen to the Bloc.

However I rise to support Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 11. Motion No. 6 deletes the possibility of government bailout of any CN debt. Current CN debt stands at $2.5 billion. Financial and industry experts agree that it will never reasonably sell with that debt level and must be reduced to an amount that would achieve an investment grade bond rating of BBB. A $1.5 billion debt would achieve this bond rating. The House should not give the minister the power to reduce CN's debt to any amount he chooses. This is risky and is not prudent.

First, it allows the minister to reduce the debtload well below the amount for which taxpayers can get a return upon sale. This could cause higher share prices which would appear to be a better deal but return a lower yield for taxpayers. I am quite certain this is not the intent of the minister, but this is no excuse for putting it into the legislation or allowing that kind of free board.

Second, excessive reduction of CN's debt would put CP Rail at a disadvantage similar to the disadvantage when Air Canada was privatized. It is not a simple matter of balancing the debt of two companies. CN has purchased many deluxe assets without normal private sector concerns for debt financing. The most recent example is the expensive buyout package for employees to help reduce CN's workforce. If CN is allowed this strategic advantage without any economic costs, it would have a tremendous and unfair market advantage.

Motion No. 7 would limit the government's ability to reduce CN debt to only the amount necessary to achieve BBB bond rating status after first reducing it by utilizing company funds available and from the disposal of real estate assets; in other words utilize cash and start selling off some of the assets. If members agree to this reasonable motion we will not need Motion No. 6 which deletes all authority for government bailout.

I also support Motion No. 11 which would provide for the continued existence of the CN pension plan to be administered by the CN pension board under current government rules. This is prudent and fair.

All too often employees with little control over the situation end up on the short end of the stick just because of a change in ownership. In many respects this is the most important and considered motion of all to pass through the House. If we all dig deeply in our collective memories we can think of living examples of people who have been treated unfairly by the system.

At this time I should like to move an amendment to Motion No. 7. The amendment is to one small section of Motion No. 7 which I believe was in error. We want the motion to read that it should apply to all CN debt, not just the debt owed to the Government of Canada. Therefore I move:

That Motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the words "owed to Her Majesty in right of Canada".

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:40 p.m.

The Speaker

An amendment to Motion No. 7 has been moved. Now I will recognize the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes on debate.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:40 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC

Mr. Speaker, my comments will deal with Motions Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle underlying Bill C-89 which provides for the transfer of the CN railway system to private interests, and the purchase of the company's remaining assets to dispose of them at a later date.

However, we vigorously oppose the outrageous powers the Minister of Transport wants to assume, under this bill, to carry out these operations. The amendments I am defending here are aimed instead at giving these powers to the House of Commons or the auditor general.

First, under clause 12, the Minister of Transport is assuming nothing less than the power to pay off the CN debts, not only from the proceeds of the sale of shares, but also out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This operation aimed at making the product more attractive to buyers actually amounts to giving taxpayers' money to buyers, potentially foreigners.

This is untenable. It is strange, to use parliamentary language, that a government could be cynical enough to suggest to the people's representatives giving a minister the power to carry out such an operation.

My amendment is aimed at seeking the approval of the House for any agreement with CN by having the minister lay the proposed agreement before the House which will then refer it to a committee of its choice. It seems to me that it would be totally irresponsible for the government to reject this amendment and accept clause 12 as it is.

Secondly, the transport minister's obsession with power is not limited to asking the House to pay CN's debts with the taxpayers' money. Under clause 6, he goes ahead and gives himself the power to have any CN asset which he would like transferred to him or to a third party in exchange for a consideration in an amount he will determine himself.

In opposition to this outrageous requirement, we offer motions 9 or 10, at the discretion of the House. In Motion No. 9, we propose that no transaction be made by the Minister which would transfer to him a CN asset worth one million dollars or more, or transfer to a third party a CN asset worth ten million or more, before fifty percent of the CN shares are sold and unless the minister tables the plan for such an operation in the House and the House approves of such a plan, upon favourable recommendation from the committee designated by the House.

In Motion No. 10, since I said the House could pick No. 9 or No. 10 at its discretion, we propose instead that the House approval be replaced by the obligation, for the minister, to refer the project to the auditor general, who must report within 15 days. His opinion must be favourable in order for the transaction to be made. Again, it seems unthinkable that members would not accept one or the other of these guarantees.

Finally, the amendments I propose are aimed at preventing the Minister of Transport from acting as if CN were his own personal property and disposing of it the way he wants, buying the company's assets or paying its debts with our money. CN is a public asset, an asset that belongs to the people. We cannot, as the people's representatives, abdicate our responsibilities by conferring to a minister the power to dispose of it as he pleases.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will speak for a few minutes on Motion No. 11 which deals with the pension plan. If we recall the history of Canada, railroads were supposed to be the catalyst for economic development throughout Canada. However, the problem over the years is that we had a company which was a crown corporation, to be privatized shortly.

The problem is that if CN is privatized, as it will be, it will serve the interests of shareholders rather than those of Canadian communities. Canada is currently going through a difficult period, while some regions are fighting to recover from the recession and to adjust to free trade. We are somewhat concerned that this privatization could add to instability at the very moment where Canada needs a reliable transportation network.

If CN were to be sold for an amount less than its book value, it has been estimated that the loss could be one billion dollars or more. We should ask ourselves if the liberal government across the way will forgive CN's debts or not. On the one hand, a privatized CN will need to be profitable to guarantee its long term growth. On the other hand, considering current fiscal restraints and the fact that this government constantly repeats that Canadians must accept cuts in social programs, one can hardly justify the decision to increase at public expense the value of shares which will be held by private interests.

The privatization of CN will also be costly for another reason. It is almost certain that some workers will lose their jobs in the process. Besides the cost of severance pay, we will also have to take into account the cost of unemployment insurance benefits and various retraining programs. After having made this preamble, I

would like to say that this is the reason why I moved Motion No. 11, which reads as follows:

13.1 (1) The pension plan for employees of CN known as the CN Pension Plan shall continue to exist and be funded and be administered by the CN Pension Board in accordance with the rules in existence immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act.

(2) The CN Pension Plan shall not be amended without the agreement of the CN Pension Board.

You will understand, and I think it is clear, that the aim of this amendment is to protect the pension plan of CN employees.

I would like to digress a little. I have never questioned the Translation and interpretation services of the House, I believe that we have excellent professionals, but I would like the service to look at the French version of my amendment. It seems to me that, instead of saying "régime de pension"-I have already been in contact with linguists from the Office de la langue française, and apparently, "régime de pension" is a literal translation of "pension plan"-we should say "régime de retraite". Not being one of those who know everything, I would like our interpretation services to tell me if my amendment is correctly written in French, as it refers repeatedly to "régime de pension".

I have said it before, but the purpose of this amendment is to protect the CN employees' pension plan. Bill C-89 does not include any measure ensuring that no change will be made to the CN pension plan, after privatization.

Finally, as has become clear to all Canadian workers, not only in railway companies, but all workers in Canada and Quebec, in spite of the NDP's traditional policy of fighting for Canadian workers' rights, the Bloc Quebecois has been the only party in this House speaking for Canadian workers' interests. For someone like me who has always worked on the side of employers, I am particularly proud to propose this amendment.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:50 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I want to support Motion No. 11.

This motion seeks to preserve the CN employees' pension plan. You will have noticed that Bill C-89 says nothing about the pension plan. I think it is important that provisions be made in the act itself so that the CN employees' pension plan can be preserved.

Why? Because of the recent and also not quite so recent history of Canadian National. We have noticed, over these past few years, that CN has had a certain propensity for shifting the costs for the transformation and modernization of the system to its employees. It has streamlined its operations under the pretext of improving productivity, but it has nevertheless changed the working conditions of its employees.

Especially during the last strike, which was a combination of strike and lockout, we saw that CN developed a strategy to completely change the working conditions of its employees and to urge the Canadian Parliament to pass a special bill under which these conditions would be legislated.

Yesterday, in the report released by the mediation-arbitration board, we saw that the worst concerns we, in the Bloc Quebecois, expressed during the debate on the legislation ordering CN and CP employees back to work, came true and the working conditions were unilaterally changed in favour of the employer.

I think it is vitally important that the Canadian Parliament protect the interests of the CN employees in terms of their pension plan. The motion put forward by my colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans should be agreed on, because it would be very reasonable to ensure that, after the sale of CN, it would be impossible to change the CN pension plan without the consent of the CN Pension Board.

You know that the rules of the CN Pension Board are such that the employees can have some influence and some input on the way the funds are administered.

I think that if such a motion is adopted-and I noted that my Reform colleague said something similar-, it would be entirely appropriate for the Parliament of Canada to ensure that justice is done for the workers who have given so much of themselves to this company and who, at the age of retirement, are entitled to enjoy the benefits they worked so long for, because people who worked for CN made a career there and were, in a way, employed by the government of Canada, by a crown corporation. I think that the House of Commons should not use privatization as an excuse for shirking its responsibilities.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of Motion No. 11, which is a very important motion.

The workers and the union are very concerned about the future of their pension fund to which they have been contributing for many years. Unfortunately, Bill C-89 does not contain any provision to protect the pension fund after the company is privatized. It is a serious omission.

This amendment is in response to a request by the unions, who do not trust either the employer or the government in this regard. There have been bad experiences there also. The employer has not always contributed to the fund in the way that was provided for in the agreements. This fund should not be used to buy shares. The risk is too great in a market that is too volatile.

The pension plan is the only source of income for most pensioners. I think workers should have more control over their pension fund since it belongs to them.

No change should be made to the pension plan without the consent of the CN Pension Board and the consent of both the workers and their unions. Workers have contributed a lot to the CN pension plan. For example, in 1989, employees traded a 1 per cent salary increase for a partial indexation of their pension plan. That goes to show the importance of this amendment, which I fully support.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour, I will be brief.

Given the fact that, in my riding, there are 500 CN workers affected by this, I would like to support the proponent of the motion, our critic for transport, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. I know, for having spoken with these workers, that people who have worked for CN have worked hard for that company. We are reminded of those who work there now, but that is a long story; for them, this is an historic moment. I think the least I can do is to support this motion.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

The Speaker

We are on group No. 3.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

11:55 p.m.

London East Ontario

Liberal

Joe Fontana LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation, with regard to the amendment proposed by the Reform Party to its Motion No. 7, I do not believe we have any objection to that technical amendment but we are opposed to its Motion No. 7 and I will deal with that now.

Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 each propose amendments to clause 12 which provides the minister with the ability to deal with CN's capital structure. In order for CN's share issue to be attractive to investors and for CN to affordably finance its operations into the future, CN's debt needs to achieve an investment grade bond rating prior to the sale. In order to achieve such a rating CN's debt will need to be reduced. The exact magnitude of the debt reduction will not be known until the bond rating agencies begin to familiarize themselves with CN and discourse between the agencies, the government, and CN addresses the issue.

Any debt reduction will have three parts. First, in order to reduce its debt CN has already undertaken to sell several of its non-rail assets, such as CN Exploration. The proceeds from such divestitures will go to debt reduction. Second, in the spirit of selling CN as a core rail operation the government has proposed that CN transfer its non-core real estate assets to the government for fairconsideration prior to the share offering. This will also help to reduce CN's debt.

Any further debt reduction will be carefully considered by the government, taking into account the need to put CN on a level playing field with its competitors and ensure that it will remain viable in the future. However, the minister needs to retain maximum flexibility in making these decisions in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Any requirements to have such actions reviewed and approved by the House of Commons, a committee of the House, or the auditor general would limit the minister's flexibility and could therefore impede the transaction from proceeding in a timely and efficient manner, consequently affecting the value.

Therefore, these motions cannot be supported.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 and the new clause 13.1 the opposition is proposing would remove from the Minister of Transport the flexibility he requires in dealing with the transfer of assets in the context of CN commercialization.

The commercial nature of the transaction dictates that any transfer be efficient and timely. The requirement to report to the House or have the auditor general review any such transaction before the transfer can proceed would seriously impair the minister's ability to direct that such transfers be undertaken in a timely manner. By impairing the efficiency of the transfer process the value of the transaction may be affected.

Moreover, to the extent that such assets are transferred to another crown corporation, they would be recorded in the crown corporation's corporate plan, a summary of which would be tabled in Parliament on an annual basis. This would allow all members to review the value of the assets in that crown corporation on a regular basis. In addition, the auditor general would have the opportunity to review such transfers in the normal course of events.

In addition, the commercial nature of these assets in some cases calls for confidentiality, which could be jeopardized should the minister be required to report any such transaction to the House.

Therefore, because of the need of timeliness, efficiency, and confidentiality, these amendments cannot be accepted.

I want to take a little more time with respect to Motion No. 11, which deals with the CN employees and pensioners. We also agree that these men and women who have worked and continue to work for a great corporation need to understand and know how they are going to be treated with regard to their CN pension.

The pensions of all CN employees and pensioners are protected in a number of ways, but first under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985. They will continue to be protected following the commercialization of CN. The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, sets out the rules for pensions of all federally regulated companies. It therefore is a means by which to treat all those who are members of such pensions equally, including employees and pensioners of CN.

Following the sale of Canadian National to private investors all the pension promises made under the CN pension plan will continue to be honoured. The CN pension plan will not participate in the share offering. The CN pension plan is a defined benefit, which means that regardless of the vagaries of the marketplace an employee is promised a pension. That pension is calculated according to a fixed formula and the only variables in the formula are average earnings and years of service. The plan is federally registered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, as I mentioned before, which is administered by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and under the Income Tax Act, which is overseen by Revenue Canada.

Pension promises are documented in the text of the CN pension plan, which describes the entitlements of the 50,000 pensioners and surviving spouses as well as the approximately 25,000 active members. These pension promises are supported by the assets of the CN pension trust fund, which do not form part of the assets and revenues of CN. Legal title to the assets of the fund is held by the trustee of the fund, the Montreal Trust Company of Canada.

The CN pension plan and fund, in addition to being regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and Revenue Canada, are audited by the company's internal auditors as well as by external auditors. The financial, actuarial, and administrative aspects of the CN pension plan are also reviewed by the CN pension board, which is composed of five company representatives, five union representatives, five pensioners, and one representative of CN non-scheduled employees. As well, the CN pension plan and fund are subject to periodic actuarial evaluations by the external actuary, whose reports are presented to the CN pension board, submitted to the board of directors, and filed with the regulatory authorities.

The foregoing processes exist to safeguard the accrued pension entitlements of all members of the CN pension plan, pensioners, surviving spouses, and active members. A condensed version of this information was printed out on the April pension statement of all pensioners in answer to their most commonly asked question about the security of CN pensions. The April 1995 issue of "Keeping Track", a monthly newsletter sent out to all active employees and pensioners, featured the chart.

The government is committed to protecting the pensions of CN employees and the new corporation. This is our commitment. The amendments as proposed by the opposition would open it to employees of federally incorporated companies coming forward and seeking their own additional protection. This could potentially lead to a mixed bag of statutes protecting different players with different benefits for each group, rather than the consistent and clear protection currently found in the single piece of legislation. This inconsistency would not serve Canadians as efficiently as keeping all provisions under a single act.

Therefore, since CN employees and pensioners already have protection under the law, which would not be affected by commercialization of CN, the government does not support this amendment.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to talk about the pension plans.

I believe it must be pointed out that the CN workers and rail workers everywhere in the country know perfectly well whom they can trust the most in this House.

[English]

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Fontana Liberal London East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the members on the other side of the House. I think we had made the commitment that the amendment to Motion No. 7 was acceptable to us. If you could return to that particular vote, I am sure we would want to correct that in the spirit of cooperation.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, it is a little bit late. Is it agreed that we return?

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 a.m.

The Speaker

We are going to deal again with the amendment to Motion No. 7. Is the House ready for the question?

Cn Commercialization ActGovernment Orders

12:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.