Debates of April 26th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the following.

It seems to me there is one commonality between what is happening here and what has happened to the EI fund, namely, the government is raiding a surplus. In the case of the EI fund, it took the money away from employers and employees and it has absolutely no intention of giving it back. It just brings it into general revenue. Now it is raiding this fund.

I would like the hon. member to comment on how those two situations are similar and on any differences he might detect in them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. The government raids every piggy bank it can find if it is going to make the government look good.

There is a little bit of difference between the EI fund, which is paid for by employers and employees, and this one. The taxpayer puts cash into the plan and they are not going to get this cash. We are not talking about tax relief. Not a penny of this is being promised as tax relief to the taxpayer, not a penny. The government wants to make a simple accounting change to reduce the debt and say how wonderful it is.

The Liberals tried to tell us how wonderful they were when I think it was Pierre Trudeau who said “Don't worry about the debt. We owe it to ourselves”. Look at the mess we got ourselves into courtesy of the Liberal government.

Does the government think it is going to fix it with some smoke and mirrors type of accounting policies? No way. Taxpayers have worked darned hard. They have had to slog and pay high taxes. Now this government is going to put a smile on its face and say it is doing a wonderful job with smoke and mirrors accounting. I say that is the wrong way.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today. It is déja vu all over again for me, having gone through the experience of merging some teachers pension funds in the province of Ontario when I was in that legislature and arguing whether or not the government of the day, the David Peterson government, had the authority to merge pensions.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That was a great government.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The hon. member says that was a great government.

The experience we had there would be rather enlightening to members opposite, were they to look at the impact. In reality we had one pension in a deficit and another in a huge surplus. There were arguments about whether or not the contributions being made by the teachers were sufficient or fair in light of contributions being made by other employees in the public sector, and indeed in the private sector.

I can say that people in the private sector would be delighted to have a pension plan similar to the one we are discussing today and certainly similar to the one the teachers enjoyed and still enjoy in Ontario.

I can see that we are changing the guard. I should clarify for the Chair that I was told by the whip's desk that I should be discussing this for a full 20 minutes, as opposed to sharing my time.

In any event, the results of that legislative change in the parliament of Ontario were that we took a teachers pension fund that was in one sense in some jeopardy and by increasing the contributions and by taking the surplus into proper use, we were able to create one of the strongest pension funds in all of Canada, perhaps even all of North America. In fact, look at what it owns.

[An hon. member]

The entire world.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

It could be the world. You never know. I am not sure of the European, Asian or African experience, but it is very strong.

It owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, who are about to go on and defeat Philadelphia this evening, hopefully. It has amazing investments that are making wonderful returns for its members.

For whose benefit? That is what we hear in this place from members opposite. Who is going to benefit from these changes? They are trying to suggest that this is simply for the benefit of the Liberal Party or the Liberal government. That is absolute nonsense.

This is for the benefit of all Canadians and in my view, the changes here are for the benefit of those who will draw on that pension. This will ensure that that pension is sustainable for many years to come for the tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of pensioners who will draw upon it.

I wish to point out something which I find rather interesting. We went through the exercise of having a vote in this place. We voted on a motion to adjourn the debate. I am sure the public who were watching were somewhat confused. Why would we be voting on a motion to adjourn the debate and what debate were we adjourning?

The House leader for the official opposition put forward a motion on debate that we should have televised coverage of every committee operated from this place. On the surface that would seem to make sense. Why would we not want to have all the debates open to the public and televised? The reality is, and the reason I raise this point is that instead of getting on with the debate on a very important issue such as this bill and the changes to the pension act, what we got was a filibuster that is meant to do nothing more than put a wrench in the wheels of government. It is not substantive.

The member opposite knows full well that there are dozens of committee rooms throughout the parliamentary precincts. The rooms are in various buildings, across the street in the Wellington building, in West Block, East Block and Centre Block. They are all over the place. If we were to attempt—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to the member's attention that we moved off that subject when we had the vote. We are now on Bill C-78 which has nothing to do with cameras and committee rooms.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for St. Albert does have a point. I would ask the member for Mississauga West to make a link between what he is saying right now and the bill.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, all I need is a bit of time to do that. I can see the link quite clearly. I heard the member who just rose on a point of order stand here and complain about closure. I do not know how that had anything to do with this bill.

What it had to with was the attempt by the opposition to delay this parliament, to stop us from having the opportunity to speak about this bill. That is exactly what it was about. Now we face the threat from the House leader who came halfway across the floor to say “You guys have had it now. We are going to keep on delaying”.

Instead of getting on with the issue of whose surplus it is, instead of debating with my hon. friend who chairs the public accounts committee and does a commendable job at it, instead of getting to refute some of the points the member makes, we wind up wasting time. It is now five o'clock and question period was over at three o'clock. So what do we do. We kill the better part of two hours in this place because the members opposite simply want to stand up in an obstreperous manner to try to delay the proceedings of parliament with nothing whatsoever to be gained on the bill involved.

The question here is, whose surplus is it anyway? Let us look at the facts. We have a collective agreement. While I find the position of the Reform Party, in the usual fashion, somewhat off the wall, I want to at least give some credit to the NDP critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre. Even though I do not agree with the position the member is taking on this, at least the NDP is being consistent on this issue.

I will read from Hansard the NDP's view. This came from the member for Winnipeg Centre: “It is a basic tenet of the trade union movement that all pension surpluses are the sole property of the employee. They are not the employers' money to use as they see fit. They are deferred wages. It is our money speaking on behalf of working people”. That has long been a position of the New Democratic Party. That is absolutely clear. Its stated philosophy or goal in life is to stand up in its own way and defend what it sees as the rights of the union.

Then we get the other extreme that comes from members of the Reform Party. They say it is the position of the official opposition that these surpluses belong to neither the government nor outright to the unions. It is the taxpayers who are the forgotten partner in this debate.

We have pretty extreme positions dealing with an issue. Interestingly enough it is easy to take extreme positions when they sit in opposition and are accountable to no one. It is up to the government then to make a decision as to what is fair.

We have a pension fund where contributions have been made by the employees and the employers alike at a ratio of 70% by the employer, which happens to be the taxpayer, and 30% by the employee.

Would it not make sense, if we believe in the position of the Reform Party that the taxpayers are the forgotten elements, to use the surplus that has built up as a result of a 70% contribution over many years to pay down the debt? I find it astounding that members opposite could stand in their places, as I think the previous speaker said, and say that $30 billion is only a small amount.

The government has been successful in eliminating a $42 billion deficit-overdraft. For the first time in over 40 years it has actually put a dent in the debt of the country by some $20 billion. Now we have an opportunity staring us in the face to further reduce the national debt by $30 billion.

I understand where the NDP is coming from. It is fighting for its brothers and sisters in the union. It is consistent. However I cannot understand where the official opposition is coming from when it stands and says that we should leave it alone, not touch it. It does not belong to the union. It does not belong to the government. Somehow it belongs to taxpayers but we are to leave it alone and not give it to the taxpayers.

[An hon. member]

Did we say that?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The member asks whether they said that. How else would we interpret the fact that I have heard members of the official opposition say that the surplus moneys should be left in surplus and simply allowed to grow?

Somewhere the NDP talks about the potential growth going to $100 billion. Let us turn around and extrapolate it. We leave the $30 billion in the account as members opposite are suggesting. That account then grows to $100 billion as a result of a contribution agreement that is 70:30. Benefits are being paid out. Obligations are being made. Pensioners are secure. We should leave $100 billion in some kind of surplus savings account while taxpayers on the other side of the argument struggle with the burden of carrying a $550 billion or $560 billion debt? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It is time all of us in this place, regardless of political stripe, agreed with the taxpayers who say to me that we should pay down the debt. Yes, they want tax relief, but they want debt reduction. The reason they want debt reduction is that they know that debt will fall on the shoulders and come out of the wallets of their kids and their grand kids. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

They can point fingers if they want and say that the reason the debt is so high is this or that government. We could blame all kinds of people and parties, most of them not in this place, for the size of that debt.

The reality is that society has changed. Our country has matured. It is my view that we have matured to the point where we recognize something which I think was recognized in many municipalities around the country in the late seventies, that we cannot simply continue to borrow and mortgage the future.

That is what this is all about. I find it a rather incongruous position for the opposition party to stand in this place and say we should leave it alone, ignore it, pretend it is not there and save it for a rainy day.

This brings me to another point. Whether it be an employment insurance fund or a superannuation fund for the RCMP or for anybody involved in the public service, who ultimately is responsible to ensure that the pension commitments are made?

[An hon. member]

It is not complex.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

No, it is not complex. It is pretty straightforward. I would submit the people of Canada have signed the bargaining agreements and employ these individuals. It is the Government of Canada representing the people of Canada that is ultimately responsible for it.

The issue of the surplus is key just because of the size of it, it being a $30 billion impact. If I thought for one minute we would take the $30 billion out of this fund and simply spread it around and spend it, that would be irresponsible. That is not what we are talking about. This is an unprecedented opportunity for the government to show leadership in fiscal responsibility again.

It would follow on the last budget and the one before and the takeover in 1993 when the government put the country of Canada, along with the tremendous help and sacrifices of Canadians, on the route to fiscal responsibility by eliminating the deficit and starting to pay down the debt.

They can say all they want about disagreeing with government policies. They can say all they want about criticizing the direction or philosophy of the government. They cannot dispute that since 1993 the overdraft in the country has been eliminated and the debt is starting to be paid down.

While it is an important part of the whole issue surrounding these pension amendments, the primary purpose is to establish something that once again members opposite, notably the New Democrats and the Reform, should be supporting, that is a public sector pension investment board.

An argument has gone on and on at various levels of government about who will control the money. Who will make the decision about where it is to be invested and how much it returns? This is an absolute breath of fresh air because the board will operate at arm's length from the government, something I would have thought we would have heard cheers about from members opposite.

It will be arm's length from employees and pensioners. No member of parliament will be allowed to sit on it. That is the way it should be. There should be no conflicts or perceived conflicts in the establishment of such a board. There will be 12 qualified directors to be appointed by the government. I do not know who else would appoint them.

Ultimately at the end of the day it is the government that is responsible, that is liable for anything which goes wrong, and there is no question it is the government's responsibility to ensure that there are 12 competent, highly qualified individuals on that board.

It will require quarterly or annual financial statements to be provided to the ministers responsible for the funds. An annual report will be tabled in the House, I say to the chair of the public accounts committee, which is something he is always calling for. There will be an opportunity to debate that report. We can refer it to committee. There is no question the accountability is there.

I mention particularly for members of the New Democratic Party mandatory advisory committees for each of the three major plans with at least half the committee members to be employees and pensioners shall be established.

That is saying there is an opportunity for co-management, an opportunity for input. I am sure the New Democrats would rather turn it over unilaterally to the union. I understand that position. That would be once again consistent with the philosophy of that party, but that is not the position the government wishes to take.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Turn it over to management. That is what is happening.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I do not think it should be turned over to management either. This is an opportunity to work together on this fund and it makes absolute sense.

The question of managing ongoing surpluses is critically important as is the whole issue of how we determine over a 15 year period what is to be done in relationship to any surplus that might amount. We do not need to be going through this every 15 years. This is causing some stress, some anxiety.

I understand the labour position. I would expect nothing less than for labour to stand through its representatives in the House and fight on the basis that it thinks this is its money and it should have control of it. I understand that. I just do not agree with it. Neither does the government agree with it.

I do not understand the position of the official opposition, however, that would continually simply take a position that is contrary. Somehow Reform members think every day when they get up in the morning that whatever they do we will disagree with and take a contrary position.

This is responsible legislation. It is fair to the taxpayer. It is fair to pensioners that will need this pension for their future protection.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech to some degree, although I have a number of questions for the hon. member for Mississauga West.

It is interesting that a third of the bill deals with redefining or changing the terms widow, wives, spouse, spouses. They are all taken out of the bill and he did not make any mention of that. They have been replaced with the following, and I read from the bill itself:

For the purposes of this part, when a person establishes that he or she is cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with a contributor for at least one year immediately before the death of the contributor, that person is considered to be a survivor.

The key is “cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature”. Nowhere in the bill does it define what that is exactly.

Would the hon. member for Mississauga West be so good as to tell us how the government will determine who qualifies and who does not based on that definition?

For example, would two roommates who are close and share expenses but have no conjugal or intimate physical relationship be excluded based on physical intimacy? Is this the policy of the party whose leader once said that the government had no place in the bedrooms of the nation?

I would appreciate if he could clarify for the House how they intend to approach that issue with the bill.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure it caused some consternation in the Reform Party when its members saw what appeared to be some attempt to dodge the same sex issue. They would like to simply turn this debate around on that one issue.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Give us a break.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I will give the member a break all right. What has happened here is that the government has put in place an amendment which frankly takes that issue off the table and settles it.

Let us deal with the important issues. The important issues in this are not whether someone is having a conjugal relationship with a same sex partner. We are not redefining family. We are not redefining marriage. I believe the important aspect of benefits paid to a survivor under any pension plan is how the premiums were paid. Were they paid on a family basis and are they recognized in that capacity?

The bill goes a long way to setting a new standard that Canadians will understand.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, while we appreciated whatever the member just said, he did not answer the question from the member for Calgary Centre.

He stood up for 20 minutes in debate and seemed to have at least assured himself that he was talking about a subject he knew about, so the member for Calgary Centre asked him a question regarding the definition of the relationship of a conjugal nature. He wanted to know if two roommates who were close and shared expenses but had no physical relationship would qualify.

The member did not answer the question. I would just like to give him an opportunity to specifically answer the question that the member for Calgary Centre asked him and which I put to him again.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this proves my point. The Reform Party members would simply like to turn this into an issue of same sex relationships instead of—

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

You are the one who put it into the bill.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Well, they are trying to understand what the word conjugal means. I will allow them to go to their own dictionaries to figure that one out. It would be highly unlikely that I would take the time in here to try to conduct sex education classes for members opposite. I am not sure that they would be able to grasp it in any event.

The issues in this bill are about improvements to the benefits of the people who will collect the pensions. The issue very clearly lays out the fact that survivor benefits can include people in that kind of relationship.

I do not know why those members do not just stand up and say what it is they want to say. Frankly, I do not think they would like the reaction of the Canadian public when they do that.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member's answer and his position that the issue in the bill is to improve the benefits for the pensioners, why are we not reinvesting the surplus and improving the pension benefits to those women who have been in the service for 20 years and will get $9,600 a year in pension? Why are we not doing that? Why are we taking that money out and using it to make the government look like it has a surplus and is doing a great job with our finances?