Debates of April 22nd, 1999

The Late Frank McGee

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today the House pauses for a moment to recall the parliamentary career of the Hon. Frank McGee who served as a Conservative member of the House from 1957 until 1963. Mr. McGee represented York—Scarborough, which in 1957 was an area of tremendous growth. I believe this riding is now comprised of seven seats.

In an age before members had offices or large staffs, Frank McGee had a quarter of a million constituents to represent, an awesome task. He did so on his own. He did research in the library. He did a lot of the legwork. His speeches remain a testament to his elegant speaking style and his Irish heritage of which he was so proud.

It is well known that he vigorously opposed capital punishment and worked for the repeal of provisions of the Criminal Code that allowed for corporal punishment and the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails, a practice like capital punishment, which he felt was based far too much on revenge.

Looking back at the Diefenbaker years it is difficult to recognize that Canada today. Mr. Diefenbaker introduced legislation to authorize the use of English and French on cheques and other financial instruments, which is difficult to believe in a time like today. In speaking to the bill Mr. McGee had this to say:

This measure touches on a larger issue, the issue of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding. That is an issue which cuts across many of the inheritances with which the pages of Canadian history unfortunately are soiled.

Frank McGee was a grand nephew of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a Father of Confederation who was assassinated for his outspokenness. Frank McGee knew all too well of the diversities and the challenges posed by public life.

Mr. McGee was a vigilant and hardworking member of the House. To the qualities of brotherhood, tolerance and understanding Frank McGee added public service and political participation.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, we express our sympathies to his family for his loss and we send our gratitude that Frank McGee was willing to continue the great tradition that was started by his family.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to a late colleague, the Hon. Frank McGee. Through his distinguished career in public life Frank McGee helped guide Canada through the political and intellectual challenges of the late 1950s and 1960s.

Frank became involved in federal politics in 1957 when he was elected as the Conservative member of parliament for the riding of York—Scarborough. At that time the riding was predominantly rural and was the third most populous riding in the country.

Frank served as a member under the leadership of John Diefenbaker for seven years, being re-elected in 1958 and 1962. In 1963 he was made a minister without portfolio.

During his political career Frank advocated reforms in a number of legislative areas, including those affecting the role of women in Canadian society and divorce law. He was also an activist in the reform of our death penalty laws.

Frank McGee was a man whose abilities allowed him to serve in capacities going beyond those of a member of parliament. Frank easily assumed roles of leadership in his local community, nationally, and in the media. Although he would not be a member of parliament after 1963, Frank's ability to provide leadership on public interest issues continued to place him in public life.

After electoral defeat in 1963 Frank worked as a political reporter for the Toronto Star . Although he no longer sat in the House, Frank was broadcast into Canadian living rooms as the host of the CBC television program The Sixties .

Unable to stay away from politics for long, Mr. McGee ran again for his party in the general election of 1965. One of Frank's very valuable contributions to public life came in 1984 when he was appointed to the newly created Security Intelligence Review Committee which reviews the work of CSIS. Through his five years as a member of this committee Frank was one of the initiators of guidelines and procedures put in place to monitor the sometimes delicate work of our domestic security agency at the end of the cold war era.

After his term on SIRC, Frank continued to work in public life as a citizenship judge after being appointed in 1990. It was during this period that Frank and I shared views on the evolving fields of national security and the citizenship portfolio. I would also say that Frank looked pretty good in those citizenship judge robes.

I pay tribute to this exceptional figure in Canadian political and public life. As the member of parliament for the riding of York—Scarborough, Frank McGee had a grasp of the evolving Canadian urban landscape that enabled him to play a leadership role in the demographic development of the Toronto suburbs of that time.

To his family and friends, my Liberal party colleagues and I extend our condolences in this loss. In keeping with his contribution here, we thank Frank and them for what he brought to Canadians through his service to the House and beyond.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to pay tribute to Frank McGee.

I am moved to have this opportunity to pay respects to Mr. Frank McGee and his family because Frank McGee played a role in my early years as a member of parliament. In fact, Frank McGee played a very important and deciding role in the lives of a lot of Progressive Conservative MPs in the 1972 general election.

I will elaborate. On the evening of the 1972 general election Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield went to sleep confident he was the prime minister elect of Canada with a seat count of 109 for the Tories and 107 for the Liberals. By morning the seat count was 108 to 108. The governor general could have asked Mr. Stanfield to form the government but was unable.

A judicial recount in Frank McGee's riding of York—Scarborough two weeks after the election determined that Mr. McGee had lost his seat by four votes. Pierre Trudeau stayed on as prime minister in a minority government, supported by David Lewis and the NDP.

Frank McGee was born in Ottawa in 1926 and was destined for politics from birth. Both his grandfathers were members of parliament, something very unique: John McGee had been a member of Sir John A. Macdonald's government and his maternal grandfather, Charles McCool, was also an MP. His great uncle was Thomas D'Arcy McGee, a Father of Confederation who was assassinated in Ottawa in 1868. Talk about a political pedigree. It showed. Frank McGee was a determined, enlightened and effective member of parliament.

His political career started in 1957 after completing university at St. Patrick's College in Ottawa, signing up for the air force and then marrying Moira O'Leary in 1951 and moving to Toronto. He was elected in 1957 in York—Scarborough, then Canada's third largest riding. Mr. McGee won in 1957 by 18,946 votes, a handsome victory to an individual widely acknowledged as a diligent and dedicated person who had been called to public life.

His majority was the largest ever recorded up to that time for a Conservative member of parliament. He had to go back to the polls in 1958 and won that time by 35,877 votes in the huge riding of York—Scarborough. In fact Frank's riding was bigger than the province of P.E.I.

Frank McGee is remembered by many for his private member's Bill C-6 which he introduced in 1960, calling for the abolition of capital punishment. This seminal work by Frank McGee resulted in changes to the Criminal Code of Canada that ended the death penalty for almost all crimes. It was a statement of the tenacity of Frank McGee who faced much derision by his own colleagues that were opposed to abolition. In fact, Frank McGee's family faced death threats during the debate of that bill. He stood tall, devoted and constant in his belief during those very difficult times.

In the 1962 general election Frank won again. It was a minority government and Frank was sworn in as a minister in recognition of his ability and contribution to parliament and to his country.

In 1963 Mr. Diefenbaker and his Tories were defeated and Frank lost his seat. Frank moved to journalism and worked for the Toronto Star and hosted a CBC television series call The Sixties . He ran again in 1965 but lost. Frank went on in his contribution to public service by serving on the Security Intelligence Review Committee from 1984 to 1989 and in 1990 became a citizenship court judge. Frank McGee was a very accomplished man with a lifetime spent in the pursuit of public service in one form or another.

At the outset I referred to how Frank McGee touched the lives of many of us in the 1972 election and for that matter the role he played in the destiny of this nation. In the course of political life four votes can change the course of history.

Frank McGee is spoken of with warmth in these precincts. While determined, he was never dictatorial. While enlightened, he was never egocentric. While successful, he never lost his connection with his roots and with his values.

On behalf of the Reform Party I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife Moira and to his children Maureen, Owen and Sheilagh. They have lost a good father and this country has lost a genuine example of a gifted politician and a man with a sense of duty.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues following the passing of Frank McGee, a former member of parliament and federal Conservative minister who died on Sunday, April 4, at the age of 73.

Mr. McGee was born in Ottawa on March 3, 1926 and studied journalism at Carleton College, as the university was called in those days. He enlisted at the age of 17 and served during World War II from 1943 to 1945.

In the fifties Mr. McGee settled in Toronto. He worked for a while at Sears as a purchasing manager.

His political career began in 1957 when he was elected for the first time in the riding of York—Scarborough, which was essentially a rural constituency and the third largest riding in the country. Politics was probably in his blood because his grandfathers were both federal members of parliament.

Mr. McGee was re-elected in 1958 with a majority of 35,377 votes, then the largest majority in a federal election. He represented the riding of York—Scarborough again in 1962, in a minority government, and was appointed minister.

Mr. McGee's greatest contribution as a parliamentarian was undoubtedly the private member's bill he tabled in 1960 to abolish the death penalty. Private member's bills rarely become law in Canada, but that bill led to amendments to the Criminal Code that abolished the death penalty for all but a few crimes. The only people still facing the death penalty were those guilty of homicide when the victim was either a police officer or a prison guard.

Mr. McGee later joined the Toronto Star as a reporter specializing in political issues, and he hosted a television series called The Sixties on the CBC network.

Later on, he worked in public relations. He was appointed to the Security Intelligence Review Committee on which he sat from 1984 to 1989. Appointed judge at Toronto's citizenship court in 1990, he held this position until 1996.

On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues I wish to offer my most sincere condolences to his family, his relatives and his many friends.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I would like to join my colleagues in the House of Commons who have already spoken in paying tribute to Mr. Frank McGee and honouring his memory, the work he did in this place for his community and in other positions as well.

I particularly want to recognize the historic work that we know he did in respect of the abolition of capital punishment. It was work which he began and others finished in the 1970s. There was a movement to overturn this work in the late 1980s but it was not overturned. We still have a country in which we do not have the spectacle of capital punishment. That fact is a lasting tribute to the work of Mr. Frank McGee.

I also recognize the historic work that he did with others in seeking to change the divorce laws of Canada which were quite archaic at the time he entered parliament. We know that he collaborated with others at that time in exposing just how archaic they were and in bringing about changes.

Much biographical detail has been put on the record by others. I do not see any point in repeating it. On behalf of the NDP I join with other colleagues in extending our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Frank McGee and our own appreciation for his life and work in this place and in his community.

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I undertook a few minutes ago to verify the request made by an hon. member of the official opposition that a document from which the Prime Minister quoted during question period be tabled.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant citation in Beauchesne's and the rule of Beauchesne is quite clear. A public document, in other words a government document, that is quoted must be tabled. The document in question from which the Prime Minister quoted is not a public document. In fact, it is an internal document, not a government document.

If hon. members are interested, I can certainly indicate to them the sources from which the material came. One is known as A Fresh Start for Canadians , at page 8. I believe that document comes from the Reform Party. Another is entitled The Taxpayers' Budget , of February 21, 1995, at page 43. I am sure that is a Reform Party document, if people are interested. The third document about reducing the budget of the Department of National Defence, referred to in the zero in three budget proposal, comes from a document which was apparently published November 24, 1994 and the relevant section is found at page 6.

I think that will assist hon. members in finding the information about the proposed cuts to the Department of National Defence that the Reform Party wanted to inflict upon that particular government department.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was present during the earlier exchanges when we requested that this document be tabled. I think if we review the record of the proceedings from that time we will find that the government House leader offered to table that document, recognizing fully that it was a Liberal document. We took that assurance for what it was worth. Now we find ourselves in the position where the government House leader is suggesting that he does not want to table it, but is offering us other assurances. We would like that document to be tabled, as we were assured that it would be by the government House leader.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is the difficulty the official opposition gets into in this House. We have somebody quoting from a document that is, in essence, a party document from their side, telling the whole country that this is a document from the official opposition. The country buys it. The government is deliberately misleading people. It is no different than the statements that are made over there on other issues. It either has to stop or we will start using the word that the Chair does not like.

I think the government has an obligation to table all documents. I want to see them. We are not going to stop until we get them.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will take the matter under advisement until we have had a chance to look carefully at the blues.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not mind seeking unanimous consent to table the document if the member thinks it is that important. However, I want the record to indicate that it does not meet the criteria found under citation 495 of Beauchesne's. However, if the House is willing to give me unanimous consent, I am willing to table the document. It will not create a precedent because I will be doing so with unanimous consent. This is not a document which satisfies the rule, but I am willing to do it nonetheless.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the document was promised, in any event.

If he wants unanimous consent, we will give unanimous consent for him to table it. However, I can assure the government House leader that this will be raised in a question of privilege, along with the other false statements that were made in the House today during question period relating to the Nisga'a, and he had better understand that very clearly.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. House leader has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to proceed as the House leader has requested?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am requesting clarification on my point of order as to whether the original document will be tabled. You said earlier that you would review the blues.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We did it anyway.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

That is not the original document. That is your set of interpretations that you just entered, is it not?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It is a moot point.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, debating this piece of legislation reminds me of the question that we were just dealing with. It reminds me of our questions during question period about the Nisga'a debate that is going on in the British Columbia legislature, that the government would just as soon not have going on in that province because it does not like that kind of scrutiny and it wants to control the agenda.

If it is a piece of legislation that it would just as soon not see the light of day, and if it does not want much attention to be paid to it, then it minimizes the time it is in this parliament. This bill fits that category. The government wants to have this $30 billion fraudulent exercise, this tax grab, this attempt to take money from the workers' pockets buried as deeply as possible.

Whenever the government says it is taking a balanced approach to an issue we should hang on to our hats, hold on to our watches and grab our wallets because that is Liberal codespeak for taking measures that will either rob our pocketbooks, defer an issue until hopefully there is less attention being paid to it, or it signals other intentions of government that will take people where they really would rather not go.

One recent example of Liberal-speak is the changes to the employment insurance program. The so-called balanced approach taken by the Liberal government changed the eligibility criteria, which was promoted on the basis that more people, particularly part time workers, would be eligible for benefits. In reality, eligibility was cut in half so that people who unavoidably lost their jobs had only a 35% chance of qualifying for benefits under the new rules, where previously the figure was closer to 70%.

We are now going to have a surplus in the employment insurance program this year of $26 billion, money taken out of workers' and employers' pockets by government misrepresentation. The government is still trying to justify the fact because it is trying to make its books appear better for the workers. The cold hearts over there are trying to make themselves sound warm.

We also have the example of the balanced Liberal approach to taxation. That translates into the government creating so-called tax reductions which are more than offset by tax increases in previous budgets that suddenly kick in and are not announced this year because they were announced last year or the year before. We have things like bracket creep that occur insidiously with inflation. All of this makes government revenues go up while the government claims that tax revenues are going down. That is logically impossible, but Liberals continue to ignore the contradictory reality in their public utterances.

The issue of Bill C-78 is public sector pension funds. The government mandates that private sector pension plans must be actuarially sound and must protect the contributions from being raided by the managers of the plans. What it is planning to do with the public service pension plan would be fraudulent if done by others. So now we are talking about the so-called Liberal balanced approach codespeak to public service pension funds.

The paper value of the pension plan is $126 billion. The current obligations are $96 billion. The surpluses in the accounts are: the public service plan, $14.9 billion; the RCMP plan, $2.4 billion; and the Canadian forces plan, $12.9 billion, for a total of $30.1 billion. This surplus is not guaranteed into the future. In fact this plan has been in a deficit situation before. The people who are potentially on the hook in this whole exercise are the taxpayers. This government wants to scoop the $30 billion to make its books look better. It is Liberal optics. The Liberals are putting the future taxpayer at risk as they have done in the past.

There is nothing wrong with a surplus, particularly when the surplus is there because of some recent circumstances and not through the good management of this government. The government should leave the surplus where it is. There is no guarantee and there are several indicators that this surplus will not remain a surplus over time, given such critical factors as interest rates and salary increases.

The government wants to seize the $30 billion surplus. It wants to rob Peter to pay Paul. The Minister of Finance is trying to make his government's books look better by raiding the federal public service pension plan. The surplus belongs to and is meant to benefit current and future retirees. The surplus can and should shield the taxpayer from having to contribute extra money to the fund should it go into a deficit position as it has in the past. Taxpayers pumped $13 billion beyond their yearly contributions into the plan to cover shortfalls over the past 30 years of the plan's existence.

There are some strong indicators that the pension plan will not necessarily be running an annual surplus in the future. One reason the plan is in a surplus situation now is that the fund is currently benefiting from the higher interest rates of the 1980s on the 20 year government bonds in which the fund is invested. Those 1980 interest rates were much higher than 1990 rates.

The government plans to move from low risk, long term bonds to higher risk market funds. That is a double-edged sword. That can lead to a very nice situation or it can lead to a very ugly situation, depending on what happens. It is not a low risk enterprise like government bonds.

I am not saying we should not go into higher risk, higher potential benefit plans, but in order to do so, one must do it with a running surplus for protection on the downside. The government is doing everything it can to increase the risk to taxpayers. It is not doing this on an actuarially sound basis. This is wrong.

I want to talk more about the way the government is dealing with people. We are talking about 300,000 retirees, plus 345,000 members of the public service, including military personnel and the RCMP. That is whom we are talking about. We are talking about 645,000 Canadians, plus their dependants, who are affected by this piece of legislation.

I heard the government House leader on the Thursday question on House business earlier today say that the government would like to have this all done by Friday. It is not going to have this all done by Friday if I have anything to do with it.

The government has refused to properly fund or even bargain in good faith with our public service. I am talking about the RCMP.

There is a 10% vacancy rate in the RCMP in British Columbia and it was planned by this government. We have one-third of the country's RCMP officers in the British Columbia jurisdiction. The Regina training centre is basically out of commission because of this government.

We are looking at potentially a 50% plus turnover and attrition in the RCMP over the next several years because of the demographics of its workforce. Already it is planning not to fill positions in British Columbia. What on earth is the government trying to do to the RCMP? This is going contrary to the wishes of Canadians.

We have statements from within Canadian policing organizations that organized crime is more entrenched in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction in the country. With a full slate of RCMP we did not have enough resources to address all of that and now we are going to run with a 10% vacancy rate in filling those positions.

I am sorry, but I have a great deal of problem in understanding why the government not only refuses to fund the RCMP properly, but now it wants to raid its pension plan as well. Talk about a morale destroyer.

One of the other sectors involved here is the armed forces. We have had great debate about that today. In order to do the minimum the government is requesting, we know that the military is overtasked and underfunded as it is. We know that it needs a billion dollars a year to get up to speed. That is not forthcoming. We have not seen it. All we have seen are some quality of life changes. We are happy to see quality of life changes for the military, but it needs to be equipped.

The military should not have to cannibalize the air force in order to equip the CF-18s to do the job they are doing today. Essentially that is what had to be done in order to do its job for the last 30 days in Kosovo.

The operations in Kosovo should not be coming out of the national defence budget. It requires a separate budget. We are trying to get the government to address that issue and it is fudging it over. That is not appropriate in order to achieve what we need which is to ensure that we have a Department of National Defence that can function in Canada's best interests.

For the third sector, our public service just went through a government imposed settlement. We had an all-night session in the House of Commons. At 10 p.m. on the night of the all-night session there was a negotiated settlement. We still went through that whole exercise.

What has become very clear is that the government refuses to go after final offer selection negotiations even at a time when the unions are agreeable. Those kinds of negotiations have a track record of success. The government mentality is to rely completely on back to work legislation in its labour negotiations. I call that bad faith negotiations.

Now the government wants to add insult to injury by going after the pension surplus. It has already nibbled at that pension surplus to the tune of $10 billion. Now it wants the whole pie. Will this never end? This is the Liberal agenda, or is it the Liberal leadership agenda? Is this optics for the finance minister? Do we want to get that out of the way well ahead of the next election? I think so.

Let us talk about that $10 billion, that nibbling around the edges. That is a pretty heavy nibble I understand, but there is $30 billion at risk here. The government first started dipping into the surplus in 1996. Since then the federal government has taken $10.1 billion by not making interest payments on the actuarial surplus.

We know that the auditor general has not accepted the questionable accounting practices of the government, I think in the last three budgets. We also know there is an opinion out there. I am not attributing it to the auditor general but there is an opinion shared by many that the actions taken on the $10.1 billion are also a questionable accounting practice.

The civil servants have a valid argument. They are saying that a significant part of the surplus results from the fact that they were into a six year pay freeze. In some cases that is more like an eight year pay freeze. This freeze did several things, one of which meant that new retirees from that timeframe start out receiving little more than pensioners who had retired years earlier received. That was not what was predicated by the plan.

The union is basically telling its membership they have had six plus years of wage freezes, they have had job cuts through direct layoffs or privatization and they have had delays on issues like pay equity. On top of all that, now their public service pension plan is under attack.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view given what I see in this bill. There is an expectation by the government that we all have short memories, that this bill will go through, that the next election is two years away and in the meantime we will all have forgotten about this raid on the public service pension plan.

The government has been balancing its books not by cutting spending but by raiding surpluses and taxing Canadians higher and higher year after year. The taxpayer is the odd man out along with the public service for any future shortfalls and any future deficits in this plan.

The surplus in the plan should be left alone. Plain and simple, the government should not be using it for any other purpose than to ensure that the plan remains solvent now and in the future.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-78 is a technical bill.

In fact, it is the basis for another federal government attack on its employees. It is, I would say, a new manifestation of its refusal to deal with its public service, in the broadest sense, since the Public Sector Pension Investment Board administers the pensions of several groups of Crown employees who are not, strictly speaking, public servants.

Once again, the government is showing that it does not want to negotiate, be involved in joint administration or create the partnership of which it has spoken in the past.

It would be terrible if we had to admit that the government is not capable of considering a joint administration of pension funds, discussed and negotiated with, and agreed to by, the unions, as there is in Quebec for example. That is my first point.

The second, and one I wish to stress, is that the federal government is taking advantage of a lack of clearness in the first act, in order to get its hands on all the surpluses. These are already beyond what is necessary, beyond what was recommended by actuaries to ensure that there will be enough money to pay pensions. The federal government is not the only one to contribute, but it decides that it will be the one who can dispose of this surplus.

In this case, public servants have, on several occasions, had to face layoffs and offers of early retirement, and this has had an important part to play in the feelings of discouragement among those who were left.

When I was on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, we heard repeatedly from experts that, when the remaining staff see their colleagues offered early retirement, they wonder “When will it be my turn?” This does a great deal to discourage them, and no doubt undermines to some extent their loyalty, a loyalty that is so essential if the state is to serve its people well.

These employees are already working under extremely difficult conditions in a context of diminished resources and conflict. We need only think of the last settlement and the last special law, the knife at the throat for a major group of employees.

We need only recall this to realize that once again, with the wounds barely closed and not properly healed, the government is using its absolute power—it is not only the employer but the legislator—to decide it will use the surplus over and above what is needed to make sure pension funds are paid out well according to current regulations.

This is the interpretation given this bill, and I have seen nothing that would lead me to say otherwise. That means that this decision deprives those already retired of increases.

I would like to make an aside. We are beginning to see the negative side of what appeared to be golden handshakes, the package offered those who agreed, under what seemed to be extraordinary conditions, to terminate their employment.

The money given them in exchange for their giving up their job security looked to be significant. However, we are beginning to see that a number of these employees, who were tempted to start up a small business or become self-employed have found themselves in difficult straits at an age where finding a job is infinitely harder. So they have added to the number of people in society looking for work and having a hard time finding it.

There are a number of other issues, and perhaps I will have time to address them, but I want to mention that the government wants nothing to do with treating its employees as managers who are involved in the security that must surround the management of pension funds.

In 1996, a joint committee was struck to try to make recommendations to guide the government, which, at that time, seemed to be of an excellent disposition. It is interesting to see that the committee had proposed that a board of directors comprise six members representing the employers and six members representing the workers and one retiree without voting privilege. This is what the advisory committee recommended in December 1996.

A little while later, the President of the Treasury Board said in a release that the government had accepted a certain number of these recommendations. He said:

A report, the result of four years of conscientious work by union representatives, retired public servants, and public servants who are still working.

Yet none of the recommendations made by this committee—which the minister said did its work conscientiously—was followed up on in any way.

And yet, that is possible. A long time ago, I was on a negotiating committee that agreed with the Government of Quebec that the public sector employees' pension fund—and this was the case in the various unions and departments—would be co-managed, that we would agree on investment rules. In other words, unionized employees and workers would have a say in how their money was invested.

Sometimes, the maximum rate of return is sought, but at other times the goal might be a vehicle that not only has an excellent a rate of return but that has a more social goal, that emphasizes job creation.

Having a joint management committee for a pension fund puts the onus on both parties. Quebec has operated this way for a long time. During the public finance crisis, the parties jointly negotiated how surpluses would be used. It was not the government's first idea, but it finally realized that it was advisable to make it easier for those employees wishing to retire to do so under advantageous conditions. The unions were involved, and were in fact the first to come up with the proposal. A comment could be made, but the point is that this was the result of joint negotiations.

Why is it not possible federally to reach an agreement with employees, with pensioners represented, on how their retirement money is going to be managed, on improvements where possible, and on the sharing of risks? The committee agreed on how the risks and the surpluses would be shared.

I have gone through this bill, which creates a public sector pension investment board. There is the word board again. Not only is it not a body with equal representation, but a committee of eight members must first be appointed and then make recommendations to appoint a board of 12 directors.

Do unions enjoy equal representation on that board? Are they fully represented? No, and this is very unfortunate. The government is creating a board, which it claims will be operating at arm's length from the minister. That is what it claims.

The government claims that the board is not an agent of Her Majesty and is therefore not accountable. In fact, that board is appointed if not directly, at least indirectly, by the minister. It will be the minister who will choose the committee members who, in turn, will select directors. This is particularly true in the case of the chairperson.

One thing, among others, that struck me is how the investing will be done. The board's objects are defined as follows: b ) to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return, without undue risk of loss, having regard to the funding, policies and requirements of the pension plans established under the Acts referred to in paragraph ( a ) and the ability of those plans to meet their financial obligations.

Then the bill provides that the governor in council may determine what percentage of funds is to be set aside to buy Government of Canada bonds, and what rules should be used to calculate that percentage.

Not only is the government using the surpluses already accumulated, which total approximately $30 billion and are beyond what is necessary to maintain the pension plans, but it will also use that $30 billion to pay its share of contributions. The government is giving itself 15 years. In addition, it decides on the rules governing the investment, in addition to giving a very specific mandate to the board to “invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return, without undue risk of loss”.

We are living in a period where workers and social organizations are becoming increasingly aware that investments can affect the economy we live in.

The only mandate here is a maximum rate of return, “without undue risk of loss”. What does “undue” mean? If we take a big risk that could bring a significant return, is the risk undue?

In this current period, this provision bothers me quite a bit. I am sure many people in the unions will wonder why they have no say and why they too cannot make choices.

All that looks a lot like this government's approach to managing transfer payments, where the government reduced its deficit by transferring it through significant cuts to health care, education and social welfare up to the latest budget. In this budget, it is far from returning the situation in these fields to what it had been, even though it has guaranteed investments over five years of $11.5 billion. We are a long way from where we were before.

This is the same government that made major cuts to unemployment insurance programs. It reduced accessibility. It reduced benefits and the length of their payment.

This is also the same government that is now equipping itself to take the surpluses in the pension funds. Instead of agreeing to share the administration with the unions, it makes decisions by equipping itself with mechanisms which appear to put it at a distance.

Anyone reading this with care will see that the government is accomplishing indirectly what it does not want to do directly. It is hobbling the board to such an extent that it has no leeway, moreover I would not want it to.

I would be tempted to make use of a word that is unparliamentary. It means to try to appear to be doing something other than what one is actually doing. I trust that is clear. Saying that one is doing one thing, while doing another. The government is not keeping its distance, but instead of managing jointly with employees, it creates a body to serve its interests, which is most regrettable.

We have had a number of opportunities in this House to speak of the government's relationship with the public sector, and I would like in closing to make a comparison. The federal government's inability to deal properly with public sector employees in something as natural as the pension funds, an area in which agreement should be reachable, reminds me of the way it treats the Quebec people.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Mercier, who has left her mark as a remarkable unionist. She speaks of workers with the voice of experience.

We are talking about $30 billion in surpluses: $14.9 billion in the public service superannuation plan, $2.4 billion in the RCMP plan and $12.9 billion in the Canadian Forces plan. That is a lot of money.

When we buy life insurance, we do not like it if, at some point, the company changes the rules. This is money taken from the pockets of these people. My colleague put it very well: the government is indirectly setting up—it is even sneakier in a way—some kind of committee that will not be independent.

Money was taken from the employment insurance fund, and the minister opposite must have some regrets about that. He could at least make amends by putting some money back in the workers' pockets. In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, workers come to my office and say “What is going on? In the spring, we are three or four weeks short”.

Can we draw a comparison between this and the theft in the employment insurance—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member to choose his words carefully. He is well aware that the word he just used is unparliamentary.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

I withdraw the word “theft”, Madam Speaker. I will use “spirited out” instead.

Can we not draw a comparison between what the government is going to do to public servants and what it did to other workers with the EI fund?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I closed my speech with a similar comparison. It is indeed sad to see the government using the surpluses instead of improving the pensions of those who will be retiring or are already retired.

Instead, the government is taking this money and using it. In any event, it is possible, through a complicated mechanism, to put it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, since the latter will pay its premiums. But we know that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be able to get its hands on this money.

That is why I said it brought to mind the federal government's whole management approach, which is to take everything it can get from workers. This is what it does with employment insurance, transfer payments and now this pension fund bill.

I would like to read part of a release issued by employees and pensioners. It said basically the following:

After a six-year salary freeze, massive job reductions through direct layoffs or privatization, and continual foot-dragging on pay equity rulings, the position adopted by the Treasury Board during the 1998 consultation on public service pension reform is of great concern.

They were right to be concerned, because I think that the bill as it now stands goes much further than they were worried about at the time.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, does the member of the Bloc see this a larger pattern of the current government taking public money away from the public good and putting it into private hands rather than back into communities?