Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Gordon Fyfe]

The contributions are actually collected here, and the gross amount is somewhere around $4 billion. The fund was only created on April 1, 2000. At that date it had zero assets, and since that time—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, there was a $30 billion surplus that Marcel Masse took and used to pay down the debt, instead of giving it to the beneficiaries.

[Gordon Fyfe]

But there are two—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That ended. I know. Marcel Masse—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We want to stick to the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I want to talk about Marcel Masse for a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know you do, but I want to stick to the bill and I have the gavel.

[Paul Cantor]

Mr. Martin, if I may take you back to the other side of your question, just as a specific example—and I apologize if you already know this—if somebody retired from the public service in 2005 after 25 years' service, the first 20 years would be paid from the consolidated revenue fund, just as it always has been. Only the last five years would be covered by us. In the meantime, we get all of the contributions, and that's why it's growing by $3.5 billion a year and will for another 10 or 15 years, until we catch up.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I understand that. My only point was....

I guess what I was getting at is to ask, how is any surplus treated? If your fiduciary obligation is to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the plan, and if another surplus evolves, whether through interest rates or other factors, will that surplus go to the beneficiaries or will it be hived off again by the government to use in building roads somewhere?

[Paul Cantor]

It's important that we clarify that we only have responsibility for the investment of the funds that are passed to us. We have no responsibility on the liability side; we have no responsibility in respect of the surplus. All we do is take the money that is passed to us by the employees and the employers and invest it to the best of our ability. All of those questions that you are asking, sir, are outside our terms of reference.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I agree. You're right; I forgot.

Okay, those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move on to Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming.

I just have one brief question I'd like you to expand upon. You mentioned it in your brief, and unless I missed it I didn't hear any further explanation. In your brief you call for a “speedy passage” of this bill. Could you give me some reasons why for your organization a quick passage of this bill would be so important?

[Paul Cantor]

We support the overall direction of the bill as it relates to the PSPIB. In respect of conflict of interest, the guidelines that were created previously create the potential for some difficulties in resolving issues as to whether board members who have expertise may be also faced with conflicts of interest. Under the accountability bill, because it follows the Canada Corporations Act and because our legislation is modelled on the Canada Corporations Act, we believe that uncertainty is eliminated and that the conflict of interest issues can be dealt with as provided in the accountability bill and as provided in the PSPIB legislation.

The second reason we would like to see speedy passage is that another of the provisions changes the term of directors from three years to four years. Because the work we do is so complex and expertise takes so long to build up, there is a great benefit to us in having four-year rather than three-year appointments.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you. I have no more questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

My question has been answered, thank you. I am very satisfied.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We appear to have come to an end. Thank you very much to all three of you for coming. We appreciate it.

We'll break for a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll start the business portion of the meeting. This is still public; this is still televised.

We have distributed to you some draft motions for which we have properly received notice of motion.

Before we get to those, the chair would like to make a couple of comments. I intend to make them now because we appear to be about to—although we may not—move into a new stage. So I'm going to make a statement as chair as a clarification. The reason I'm making this statement is that in the past I've been asked to cast votes for tied votes.

A point of order, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

My suggestion would be that we address tie-breaking votes if there is one to be cast.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to make a statement; it's as simple as that. You'll have to bear with me, as it won't be long.

Before we proceed with this bill clause by clause, I would like to share some information with members of this committee. As you know, there have been several situations in recent meetings where divisions on motions have resulted in tied votes, and I've delivered a casting vote.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains the casting vote on pages 268 to 269 in this manner:

The Speaker does not participate in debate and votes only in cases of an equality of voices; in such an eventuality, the Speaker is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote. In theory, the Speaker has the same freedom as any other Member to vote in accordance with his or her conscience; however, the exercise of this responsibility could involve the Speaker in partisan debate, which would adversely affect the confidence of the House in the Speaker’s impartiality. Therefore, certain conventions have developed as a guide to Speakers (and Chairmen in a Committee of the Whole) in the infrequent exercise of the casting vote. Concisely put, the Speaker would normally vote to maintain the status quo. This entails voting in the following fashion: - whenever possible, leaving the matter open for future consideration and allowing for further discussion by the House; - whenever no further discussion is possible, taking into account that the matter could somehow be brought back in the future and be decided by a majority of the House; - leaving a bill in its existing form rather than having it amended.

Therefore, without anticipating any results in clause-by-clause, I want to inform members that if there are tied votes on clauses of the bill, I will vote in the affirmative to leave the bill in the existing form. If there are tied votes on amendments or subamendments, the chair will vote in the negative in order to maintain the status quo and keep the question open to further amendment, either here in committee or in the House at report stage.

Finally—and this is important—I intend to notify the Speaker of any casting votes delivered on amendments. Normally, the Speaker will not select at report stage any motions that were defeated in committee. However, the Speaker does exercise a discretionary power of selection, and I intend to provide him with as much information as possible, so that he may base his selection decisions on it during report stage in the House.

I trust this information will assist the committee in its decision-making process on this bill. That's my statement for you to ponder.

At about six o'clock tonight I received a document from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, R.R. Walsh, and Richard Denis, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. It has been distributed to you.

So you have this document before you. Just as a comment from the chair, which I believe I'm entitled to make, I find it a very important document. I find it very unusual that the clerk would.... I didn't ask for this document; it was just given to me. Many of you are more experienced than I am, but I find it unusual. However, the committee may consider speaking to him or having him come here, or they may not. I believe it's a fairly important document. It's here for your reading. I don't imagine any of you have had a chance to read it; you may wish to read it later, but that's for your consideration. Again, I don't make these comments to try to prejudice any of the motions—Ms. Jennings' motions, or anyone else's motions—with respect to that.

The proposal that we have for debate on these matters....

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I read the document. It is very, very important. I would like to appeal your decision. I will quickly read a paragraph because I believe it is important to read this before considering the motions before us. I don't think we can consider the motions without having read this review. I quote:

The purpose of this review is to identify those aspects of Bill C-2 that impact the constitutional position...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. Could you repeat that? I'm trying to hear what you're saying, but I'm having trouble here.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, just say when.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want to make sure everybody has this document. Does everybody have a copy? No.

Where are we?