Debates of April 26th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a relevant question.

Let me first deal with the improvements. The formula for calculating retirement benefits will be changed to five consecutive years instead of six. That is an improvement. The hon. member's own critic said so in Hansard .

The formula by which the plan benefits are integrated with the CPP or the QPP will be changed in the plan member's favour; life insurance to ensure the government's pension package for its employees, in keeping with the opinions of the courts; the issue of survivors' benefits under the major plans, including the pension plans for members of parliament, will be amended to extend survivors' benefits to same sex partners on the same basis as survivors' benefits are now available to opposite sex partners in a common law relationships.

A dental plan will also be included in the amendments. The bill will include authority for the Treasury Board to look at the surpluses that get accumulated every 15 years. I have outlined lots of benefits that will be improvements for the members. There are more, but I know that my time is limited.

The member should read her own critic's Hansard . He actually praises many of the changes in the bill on behalf of the retirees. I would not want to mislead the House by saying he agrees with everything, but he does point out that there are a number of very positive improvements.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to watch the Reform members sort of stumble in this process. They realize that what we are doing is something that they probably would consider doing if they were on this side of the House. However, because they see this as good government, they have to try to find things that will go to the worst part of their being. It is unfortunate.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. It is interesting how the member for St. Albert indicated that by putting the money in the black box and not giving it back to the taxpayers or to the employees is the best route. Reformers used to idolize the debt board. They used to get up and look at it as it turned every second along the way, yet when the opportunity is here, because it is the taxpayers' money and being returned to the taxpayer, they are against that. I just do not understand how they would put Canadian taxpayers at risk by trying some cockamamie idea of placing $30 billion in a black box for some rainy day. Will the hon. member please tell me how they can deal with this hypocrisy?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member.

Having worked with the member for St. Albert on public accounts, I have found him to be one of the few members on that side whom I would give some credit to for being a responsible individual when it comes to this. I am therefore astounded when I hear him say that this money belongs to the Canadian taxpayer, not to the government nor to the union. I understand that position. However, why do we not put it to the best use possible that will benefit the Canadian taxpayer?

From the people I have talked to in my riding and clearly those across Canada, they want us to reduce the debt. They understand the burden on their kids and their grandchildren. They want us to use every available excess dollar, every available surplus that we possibly can to reduce the debt. That is what this will do.

It is astounding that Reform would simply see us leaving it in a black box, as the member said, or in some kind of bank account and not putting it to proper use and to the benefit of all taxpayers in Canada.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first question I would put concerns the role of the legislator. I have been a member of parliament for nearly six years now, and I often wonder.

When a parliament or a government has employees it is responsible for, it becomes sort of judge and jury, and the current government is much more judge than jury. On a number of occasions, whether it involves back to work legislation or any law concerning employees, we have seen that it opposes workers and unions.

I wonder how long it will continue to abuse the rights set out in the various laws of parliament or in the provisions of collective agreements or right to strike measures.

It has become almost impossible today for public servants to enjoy the right to strike. We saw this recently with the legislation forcing employees back to work.

The position of the government in this debate is coloured anti-union or anti-worker, because it often reneges on its signature. It refuses to negotiate in the knowledge that it will legislate in the end. It is perfectly natural to question the powers of the legislator. I think it risks falling into a trap, that of thinking it can dictate because of its majority.

The government seems to be saying “We have a majority. The opposition can do what it likes, in the end, we will implement a measure”. Unfortunately, this is what happened again today with the infamous time allocation motion.

But there are safety valves in society and parliament is one of them. When the opposition parties are deliberately gagged, it seems to me that these safety valves are being bypassed. Canada's unions, its labour legislation, its collective agreements, and its opposition no longer matter. All that counts is the dictatorship of the majority. I think it is important that we be able to start by looking at this state of affairs.

I have often accused the government of relentlessly crusading against workers and we have further proof of this today. If we look at this government's track record, there is nothing surprising about it wanting to get its hands on the surpluses in federal public servants' pension funds today.

We saw this with the rail workers, when parliament sat for one whole weekend to force them back to work. Recently, there was a typical example of this, when the government forced federal public servants, who incidentally had the right to strike, back to work. The government deliberately held up negotiations.

In addition, these federal public servants had not had a pay increase for six years. All the government had to do was sit down and deliberately hold up progress at the negotiating tables in order to later be able to force them back to work. This is yet another example.

Some of my colleagues pointed out the parallel between the bill before us today, through which the government wants to grab the surpluses in the federal pension funds, and what happened and still goes on with EI.

Indeed, the Bloc has been bringing up for several years the huge surplus that is accumulating in EI fund. That surplus is currently estimated at about $25 billion. The government used this surplus to solve its deficit problem. There were many other options. For example, the government could have reduced the premiums.

We have said repeatedly that any reduction in EI premium creates jobs. Nonetheless, the government ignored that option. All it is interested in is grabbing any surplus that may have accumulated, no matter where.

The other approach suggested by the Bloc Quebecois to solve the EI surplus problem was to improve the plan. When we raise this option, the minister often calls us old-fashioned and accuses us of trying to use the EI fund for regional development purposes. But we must face reality. There are many have-not areas in Quebec and Canada where the unemployment rate is very high and which would benefit from an improved plan.

But the government is not interested in improving the plan or lowering premiums, even though that would create jobs. It wants to get its hands on the surpluses. It has already done it with the employment insurance fund. In fact, this government has a propensity to get its hand on any surplus, no matter where.

And there are other instances. The government has also cut transfers to the provinces. Now it is after the surpluses in the public service pension plans; not to mention the number of years for which it has refused pay equity for women in the federal public service.

The government is simply in the process of grabbing anything it can. Unfortunately, this means less money for the regions, and that is something we have to repeat constantly.

When we look at what we have before us today, we can see that there is a $30 billion surplus in the federal public service pension fund. Granted, half of this surplus, or $15 billion, comes from contributions made by the government and its employees. This is the kind of surplus we are talking about in the federal public service employee's pension plan. There is also a $2.5 billion surplus in the RCMP pension fund and a $13 billion surplus in the Canadian Forces pension fund.

I represent a riding that is home to many federal public servants, and to a large military population since one of the largest bases in Canada is located in my riding. This bill will affect current and future pensioners for many reasons. These are similar to the reasons set out with respect to the employment insurance fund, as I tried to demonstrate earlier.

Is the government not interested in improving the federal public service employees, RCMP and Canadian Forces pension plans? No, it is not interested in doing that, just as it is not interested in improving the EI program. It just wants to get its hand on any surplus.

Is it interested in reducing contributions substantially or giving a holiday on premiums, as is often the case? The government shows no interest at all for this solution because it wants to get its hands on as many billion dollars as possible.

For instance, could the government not reduce penalties on early retirement, which would be another way to create employment? No, the government is not interested in that, because it is obsessed with the $30 billion which it wants to grab.

The same thing happened with the $25 billion in the employment insurance fund, which the government wanted. Similarly, the government reduced transfer payments because it wanted to accumulate money and reduce its payments to provinces. Meanwhile, the government has not even put its own backyard in order.

It did not even make the necessary efforts to streamline all departments, but it forced all others to streamline their own operations. The government now wants the surplus in the public service employees' pension fund.

The only thing the government wants is to get its hands on the money. It says “Look how good administrators we are”. Conveniently, this government is almost at mid term and is now getting ready for the next election. It will be saying “See how good the Liberal government is and how well it is managing things”.

Well, they managed on the backs of everyone, including the unemployed, the provinces—with the cuts in transfer payments—and now its employees—with the pension fund surplus. The government also managed on the backs of women working in the federal public service. According to some people, this policy has allowed the government to save between $5 and $6 billion.

How easy it is to manage this way and say “We will ask everyone to make an effort, but we will not. Moreover, we will control anything that relates to negotiations or that has a significant impact on the federal budget. We will block negotiations at the bargaining table and we will impose back to work legislation and salary freezes”. And the government just goes merrily on its way.

This is outrageous. Let us not forget that we are all members of parliament, that we represent our ridings. Such measures prevent retirees from getting a little more.

In my riding, members of the Canadian forces or the federal public service make an average annual salary of $30,000. When these people retire, their income will be around $21,000. Instead of trying to help them a little more and put money in circulation in every region, the government prefers to appropriate that money. This is absolutely outrageous.

Then there is the government's argument to the effect that if there is a deficit, it pays for it. But it is Canadian taxpayers who pay for the deficit. When there are surpluses, Canadian taxpayers should benefit from them.

I would like to know how many deficits there were. What was the amount of these deficits? I truly believe that the current surpluses in the plans exceed all the previous deficits combined. It might be interesting for the government to say “We do not want to lower contributions. We do not want to improve the plan. Therefore, let us deduct all the previous deficits from the surplus. Then we will make sure the money is properly shared among those who contributed to that plan”.

This is not what the government is doing. It is ignoring all of that and simply grabbing the plan's surplus.

I would be remiss not to mention at this point the Singer employees. A few years ago, the Bloc Quebecois fought to get justice for the employees of the Singer Company because the government was a trustee of the company's pension plan. Today, I understand why the government objected to that. If it had opened the door, it would never have been able to follow through with its plan to raid the federal public service pension fund as it is doing today.

It refused to budge. I submit that the Singer employees were the first victims of the government's plan that is becoming reality today . Nevertheless, the injustice still remains. In those days, the government had allowed the Singer Company to stop paying premiums. For years, it did not contribute, whereas its employees were still paying. Then the company shut down and took off with what was left in the fund. Not only did it not contribute, but it made off with the employees' contributions.

I believe today this should weigh heavily on the government's conscience. Singer workers, who are 83 years old on average, receive a monthly pension ranging from $20 to $50, thanks to the federal government.

Today the Liberal government lets people who have been paying full premiums all their life retire, but it refuses to enhance their plan, saying the Canadian taxpayers would have to pay for it, which is not true.

It is not just the Canadian taxpayer. It is not just the government that paid for all of this. The federal public servants also paid for it. Some of them paid in for 25 or 30 years, and now, when they are in need of it, they are being told “We are going to freeze benefits where they are, and take the surplus”.

It will be no surprise to learn that the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with this. I have often made the claim that the Bloc Quebecois was the party that most supported the workers in this House. It is the one that has come to their defence the most. Most of those who voted for all of the members of this House are workers.

I believe it is right to take the side of the worker by administering the federal budget in a responsible way. Unfortunately, in this House only the Bloc Quebecois has held a consistent position as far as workers are concerned, in all the issues I have listed. It is the only party that has defended them. No matter what bill was introduced, it was the only party to come to the workers' defence. All of the other parties, at one time or another, have taken a wrong turn, have given up caring about the workers, but not us, ever.

Nor will we today. We will fight this bill to the utmost of our limited abilities. We have very little leeway. The government has announced “Debate will be over at 6.30 p.m. Then there will be a vote”. What is going to happen in committee, because the bill will be referred to a committee? The same thing, probably. At one point they will say “That is enough. We will move on to clause by clause adoption”. It will come back at third reading, and the government will probably impose closure again.

It seems to me that this government uses closure to excess. The opposition parties help ensure the government does not fall into dictatorship by majority. It denies the right to speak to those who are trying to bring about more specific things or to do a little damage control. We have a government that is not only judge and jury outside the House through negotiation, but judge and jury in the House because it limits the opposition's time for debate.

Accordingly, and for these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and to the debate generally.

It seems to me one precious part of this argument is missing. There are two different types of pensions in the private and public sectors. One is called the defined benefit program. The other one is a fluctuating benefit program.

The fluctuating benefit is determined by the amount of money that is invested in the plan. In other words, it is an actual calculation of how much money is invested and then the benefit level is determined.

This plan is a defined benefit plan. It means very simply that the benefits are predetermined. It is irrelevant how much money physically is in or is not in the plan. The beneficiaries will get the same pension.

The Reform Party's position is even more ludicrous. The Reform Party is saying to leave the money in the plan. But there is no money. It is a notional amount that does not exist. There is no bank account with $30 billion in it. Whether we left it in the plan or took out it will not improve the employees' benefit levels.

This particular intervener talked about defending the workers of Canada. I suspect that those workers are also taxpayers. What he is talking about is giving this $30 billion of the taxpayers' money that has built up in this fund to somebody else. I just said that it would have no impact on the calculation of people's benefit packages.

How could the member justify taking a predetermined benefit package and increasing people's benefits for which there is no legal framework to do so, in other words, taking it off those very workers he claims to defend and giving it to another group of workers? It makes no sense.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would respond to my colleague by saying that if we cannot improve the plan—and I have my doubts, because as legislators here, the plan must be approved by the Parliament of Canada—I suppose it is possible to change the terms.

But even if there were not a way to change the terms of a plan, could we, for example, lower the contributions employees pay weekly, daily, from their paycheques so they keep the plan they have now?

There are a number of solutions open to the government, but unfortunately it is not interested. It changes the figures when it is time to be judge and judged, in order to save money and then turn around and help itself to a surplus it often generated itself.

I was reading a very interesting article this morning written by a Mr. Paquet, who has worked in the union sector for quite some time. He says that plans are often based on actuarial forecasts that x billions of dollars will be needed to keep a plan going for x number of years. Yet actuaries are frequently wrong, and he compares them, quite surprisingly, to Quebec's JoJo Savard, a fortune teller.

When there are surpluses in the plan, there are two ways of using them. But that assumes one is not trying to help oneself, that one wishes to help workers and those wanting to see their regions benefit from these surpluses. The plan can either be improved, or contributions suspended for a while. These are ways of reducing the surplus, but this is not what the government is doing.

The government is maintaining contribution rates at existing levels, or very nearly, and claiming that the surpluses belong to it. This is completely wrong, in my opinion.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member from the Bloc and his colleagues who preceded him. They believe that the investment fund, especially the Quebec pension plan, worked really well. They liked the model. Taking into account that it is a shared risk management, on that basis it would be shared by those participating in the plan.

Unfortunately the member fails to address the issue that employees now contribute 30% of the plan with a maximum 7.5% of the amount when we take into account that CPP has gone up and reduced the amount they actually contribute to the pension plan. This surplus has been created because the actuarial evaluator determines for the government how much it should put into the plan on a current year basis taking only that year into account. Had they taken the whole process into account, then the government would not have to put in extra money.

In the future plan that is being set up, the investment fund, which I know his party endorses, does the hon. member believe he should advise the unions to participate in the risk management sharing? In effect any surplus in the new plan could be shared through holidays for the employees or the employers or both on that basis. In effect the risk is also taken into account and if a deficit does occur they will also put in.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Quebec public service pension plan is properly managed. It is so because of a tradition of effective negotiations with the central labour bodies in Quebec on how the plan should be managed.

It goes without saying that the government has certain prerogatives. At some point, it can say that there are problems, that the fund is accumulating more slowly, or that it owes too much money to the fund. The government will then sit down with the central labour bodies and negotiate.

The Quebec tradition in this regard is rather effective. As far as I am concerned, it is better than the federal approach I have seen for the past six years. The federal government ignores the unions, either slows down negotiations or stops them altogether and ends up pushing back to work legislation through the House.

I agree that workers should have a responsibility if there is a deficit or a surplus. But there are surpluses right now. The government did not provide the figures for the previous deficits, but we have had surpluses since 1995. I am sure that the surpluses exceed the deficits.

It is not right for the government to now take the money and say “Continue to pay. We will not improve your plan; we are only interested in taking the money”. Again, this is not right.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are now at the point in the debate where the debate is 10 minutes. The Chair made a little mix-up earlier which has caused a couple of other members not to get a chance because the debate will terminate in another 30 minutes.

We have at least five other members who want to say a few words. If members who are still participating in debate would keep that in mind, perhaps we could get through to everybody. If we keep our comments down to what needs to said, in that way we can get more people in.

I apologize for cutting the Reform Party out of two 10 minute slots.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my remarks cogent.

As has been variously raised, mainly by the Reform Party, the issue of the word conjugal has turned up in the act. There have been a number of questions through our side and the suggestion that we do not want to deal with the issue raised in the bill, that is same sex survivor benefits.

I have speaking notes provided by the government. As a matter of fact I think by the department, and I presume they are available to every member of parliament. These notes make it very clear that this legislation is about giving survivor benefits to same sex couples. It notes in the notes that I have that this is merely following in concert with various court decisions that have come down recently.

I see the member for Calgary Centre in the House. In his remarks he focused on the issue of giving survivor benefits to people in conjugal relationships. He has a very important point, because rather than the bill specifying very clearly that the intention is to provide survivor benefits to same sex couples, the bill seems to have, shall we say, gone around the corner the long way.

I have the bill here. What it has done is taken the section in the original bill that deals with survivor benefits, and that section in defining who is eligible for survivor benefits uses words like person of the opposite sex to whom the contributor was not married, the surviving spouse, the spouse of the contributor, become married to the contributor on a certain day and so forth.

In other words, the existing section of the act talks very specifically about spousal relationships and marriage relationships as defining the people who are to be eligible for the survivor benefits. Because they are talking about spouses and marriages it is assumed that it is a heterosexual relationship.

For the purpose of the act this area was changed in various places, but to avoid use of the word spouse, married or anything like that, the act defines the relationship. It says for the purposes of this part when a person establishes that he or she was cohabiting in the relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor and so on and so forth. The key word, as pointed out by the member for Calgary Centre, is the word conjugal.

Here is the problem. I for one believe it is high time for this government to recognize that there are special relationships, that there are same sex relationships that are dependent relationships and are very emotionally tied together in almost every way we can imagine. Whether there is sex involved or not there can be relationships between two individuals that have the force of a marriage, even though they are not a marriage, but are not necessarily conjugal.

The problem is that when we use the word conjugal we not only imply but we actually say that the relationship we are talking about is the married relationship. More than that, when we use the word conjugal, depending on the dictionary we use, we are even implying a heterosexual family relationship involving parents and offspring.

What I see as a result of this problem is that the government may be missing on the very thing that it wants to achieve. In other words, by saying conjugal in this bill the government may be leading the courts to strike down any attempt to apply these survivor benefits to same sex couples.

The member for Calgary Centre had a point but he did not pursue it in sufficient depth. What is really wrong here is not that the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes or go around some corner to do something the public does not want it to do. The government has been very open with respect to its intention to try to honour what the courts have said and to honour what most Canadians are saying, that there are certain special relationships that do justify people receiving survivor benefits.

However, I think the government has erred dreadfully in using the word conjugal rather than actually coming out and saying it for what it is. If we do not want to use the term same sex relationship then dependent relationship could be defined elsewhere in the legislation, the word dependency. The use of conjugal in this context may lead to problems with this legislation. I hope the government will re-examine the way it has written these particular clauses.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do my best to respect the time constraints. I must first excoriate the government for again moving closure on an issue like this one. This is the 51st time it has done this since it has been in power, exceeding the record of the previous Mulroney government. It is something the Liberals railed against the Tories for in the past. Now they are doing the same thing.

Obviously the bill is hugely complex. Not only does it chart new ground on the pension field, but in my judgment it charts new ground when it comes to issues of same sex benefits. I think the government is doing this in a sneaky way. If it wants to have a serious debate about it, it should bring it forward naked as it were in legislation so we can have a discussion and invite the public's involvement. Instead it has made it part of a bill and hides behind the skirts of the courts whenever it can. In doing that it abdicates its responsibility as a legislator.

I will say one brief word on this point. I mentioned to my friend from Wentworth—Burlington that according to the Canadian Law Dictionary conjugal rights are the rights of married persons which include the intimacies of domestic relations. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states that conjugate means to unite sexually.

The question in this legislation is how are they to determine whether people are uniting sexually. Will they have sex inspectors going into the bedrooms of the nation, something the leader of the party across the way promised we should never do?

It is a good question and I do not see anybody on the government side answering it. They have talked all around it. The member for Mississauga West blew a lot of smoke when he was up but never did get to the point on that issue. The government has some answering to do on this issue and I appreciate the member for Wentworth—Burlington having the courage to take this on head-on. We appreciate that.

There are many issues here. The issue I want to talk to first and foremost is the fact that the government is breaching a principle.

When it struck a deal with the Canadian public on the Canada pension plan many years ago, it promised that we would never see premiums rise above 5%. They are now at almost 10% and almost certainly going to go beyond that at some point in the future. That was a promise it made and ultimately broke.

We saw the same thing happen with Employment Insurance. We saw a fund being set up ostensibly to provide benefits to the employees who subscribe to that plan. They pay in all kinds of contributions and expect that they will get the contributions back. If they do not and a surplus is run up, they will get the surplus back. What does this government do? It raids that $26 billion fund.

We see that same theme happening yet again with this bill, the public service pension fund. A $30 billion surplus has accumulated and it says “The means justify the end. We will go ahead and strip this fund of that surplus because in our judgment we can use it for something better than what that money would go toward if it were left in there”. I think that is reprehensible.

Is there no pool of money that is beyond the reach of the government? Should we not establish a principle that there are some pools of money, especially ones that are jointly funded with the public, that the government cannot get its grubby hands on and that belong to the people who kicked it in, in the first place? Should that not be some kind of a principle, or does the government feel that it can have access to every cent the public has ever put into a plan? What is next? Will it be RRSPs?

I am alarmed that the government would do this and then cut off debate by moving closure for the 51st time and basically ensuring that the NDP, the Reform Party and the rest of us who strongly oppose this and other people who have strong interests in it do not have a voice on this issue. The government should be ashamed of this, but we see it over and over again. I guess I cannot appeal to its pride on this issue.

It has simply taken the point of view that it does not care what the public thinks any more. It is going to push ahead with this and do what it will. It should be absolutely ashamed. People on this side of the House want to see an honest and open debate. Sadly we will not get it from that gang over there.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into debate on Bill C-78. I want to reiterate some of the things I said earlier during questions and comments concerning the nature of the plan.

I discussed the aspect that this is a defined benefits plan. That is very specific because what it says is that it is based on certain things. For instance, the last six years of employment earnings is how they go about calculating the pension one will receive in retirement.

Quite frankly it has nothing to do with the money sitting in the plan. One could actually even have a plan of this nature which has no money in it whatsoever, as long as the employer was of sufficient calibre to make the payments. The reason there is a notional plan is that it involves the actual contributions by the employees and the employer.

Various legislative bodies from time to time say that should be invested. The whole concept of investing it occurs within the private sector because we are not so sure the employer will be there to make the final payments. Most of us agree that it has occurred by way of convention that most people believe the government will somehow continue to be here and somehow continue to honour their pensions. The reason there is a surplus is that there has been some kind of actuarial decree which is some kind of inexactitude.

I would like to point out another very basic aspect of this plan. Most private plans require contribution ratios of the employees of at least 40%. This plan has had a contribution ratio from the employee of only 30%. The employer, the government, has actually paid 70%. Most people would conclude that this has been a very generous plan.

Earlier today I heard the minister say that civil service employees are good workers, that we honour that and we are happy to give them a very generous plan. However, our generosity has to stop when we start talking about this notional surplus.

How would members opposite deal with the surplus? Would they physically give money or enhance the benefit packages of the beneficiaries? That would be breaking the original terms of the agreement. That would be saying that we are going to pay even better benefit levels than those which were originally agreed to, as generous as they were. Or would they reduce the premiums, even though the premiums are some of the lowest of all the pension plans in the country?

Indeed, because it is based on 7.5% of earnings, less the amount of Canada pension plan contributions, members' contributions to the plan have been decreasing, whereas everybody else in the country has been paying higher premiums into their pension plans, realizing that to have an enhanced pension plan it has to be paid for.

There is no justification for the argument that somehow the money belongs to people other than the people who originally put in the money, who are the taxpayers of the country. I am very surprised by the attitude of Reform members. They say that we have to reduce deficits and then suddenly they say “Leave the money in the plan”.

However, there is no plan and there is no physical money in the plan. The plan is financed from the general revenues of the Government of Canada. They are saying “Take money out of the tax revenues this year and give it away to these people”. Reform members are saying that the taxpayers should somehow shell out more money for a plan that has been very well put together, at great benefit to the employees of the civil service, who are already receiving the benefits they were guaranteed under the plan.

Is this called progress? Is this called integrity or accountability? It is ridiculous. I am surprised. I hope we do cut off debate because the debate which is coming from that side of the House is not very meaningful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting most of the day to speak. I think the real question is, can Canadians trust the Liberal government? If Canadians could trust the government they would probably say that the promise to take the $30 billion and pay down the debt is a good thing. However, considering the numerous promises that have been broken since the Liberals came to power in 1993, can we really trust them? We in the official opposition certainly cannot. The Liberals have given us an overwhelming amount of reasons to mistrust them.

We have the dreaded fear that when Liberals get their hands on money like $30 billion they simply will not do what they say they are going to do. As my colleague from Medicine Hat pointed out, the Liberals said they were going to scrap the GST during the 1993 campaign. They went house to house, doorstep to doorstep, telling potential voters that if they were elected they would scrap, kill, abolish the GST. This is 1999 and the GST is still there.

Even the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is still paying GST. When he goes downtown to buy a can of Lysol he still pays GST on it. We are getting a little closer to the truth now.

Government members are telling us once again “Trust us. We are going to appoint this board and, by the way, in case Canadians do not know, this board will not be subject to the scrutiny of the auditor general, the chief watchdog of crown money”.

This board will not be accountable to the auditor general. This is the same thing we argued when we protested the propriety of the board which oversees the multibillion EI fund. The government staunchly refused to allow that board to be accountable to the auditor general. It is doing it again with the public service employee pension fund. One can only look at the Liberal record and say “Can we trust them once again?”

The other thing that really bothers us is that once again the government has cut off debate. This is something which the Liberals, when in opposition, railed against. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, whom we are all thankful is gone, and the dreaded Tory government brought in closure time after time. Liberal members said that was the most disgusting thing a government could do. What have they done? They have beaten the record of the Tories. They have gone way past the Tory record. We are up to the 53rd or 54th time.

Yes, they paid down the debt. However, they have raised taxes by some $40 billion since 1993. These are tax increases, not simply the increase in revenue that the minister talks about because the economy is paying that. They raised taxes in 39 or 40 different areas to the tune of about $40 billion. They beat the deficit on the backs of Canadians.

Even the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam talks about it. The residents of that town tell me they are very happy he is in Ottawa and not still the mayor. That was his best campaign promise: “If you elect me in the federal election I will leave town and go to Ottawa”. Boy, did he pull in the votes.

I want to close by reaffirming that this is all about trust. Who can trust the Liberals? The record speaks for itself. They have broken many promises and we should not give them the opportunity again.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to say a few words. I have been listening to the debate all day, however, I have yet to hear how the $30 billion surplus accumulated. There has been some acknowledgement that the employer and the employees have paid into it, but so far very little has been said about the interest that is earned on the investment, and there is a significant amount of money earned in that manner.

This was debated back in 1992 under Bill C-55, and I am not speaking about the split-run magazine bill. The current minister responsible for the Treasury Board makes a great fetish of how this is taxpayers' money and it must go back to them. However, if we look over the last 40 odd years, in 1955-56 the employer contributed 33.9% to pensions while the interest earned at that point was 36.8%. It peaked in 1975-76 when the employer contributed 37.4%, although the interest earned was up to 49.4%. By 1993-94 the employers' contribution was only 14% and 75.1% of the money came from interest earned. All of this has been documented.

The previous auditor general criticized the plan and noted, for example, that in 1991 there was a pension holiday. The government did not contribute any money in that year, a saving of some $760 million dollars.

Treasury Board projections to the parliamentary committee that looked at it at that time forecast a reduction in employer contributions of $5 billion over 10 years, or $500 million a year. Once upon a time the Liberals even saw through this perspective. Not any more of course.

The Treasury Board study of 1986 concluded that the Public Sector Superannuation Act would likely earn an additional 2% interest if the government had stopped borrowing money while determining unilaterally what tiny bit, if any, interest it would repay to the plan.

Who has been affected is another question. It has been documented that the 20 year average for people at the low end of the wage scale, especially women, employees who endured wage freezes and did not receive pay equity, is about $9,600 per year in pension.

It is no wonder that the Professional Institute of the Public Service says that people are amazingly upset at what the government is about to do with this $30 billion surplus. The president says it does not seem to matter how much we discuss anything, because if the government does not get its way it just writes legislation and imposes its will on us.

In 1992, here is what the Liberals proposed on Bill C-55. They proposed binding arbitration to resolve disputes, including disputes around the disposition of pension plan surpluses. They also proposed that there be minimum employer contributions of 10% to the Public Sector Superannuation Act, 12% to the Canadian Forces Act and 14% to the RCMP Act. All three plans would be subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act with right of access to data estimates and projections by all interested parties.

What has happened between 1992 and 1999 is the complete reversal? Obviously in 1992 the Liberals were on this side of the House and in 1999 they are on the government side of the House. It reminds one of the old Irish proverb which I have used before: You can vote for whichever party you like but the government always gets elected. It is certainly true and nowhere more true than in this country where for 132 years Canadians have switched back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.

In opposition we hear nothing but promises, promises, promises: promises on pension reform, electoral reform; tax reform, health reform, and reform of committees to give MPs more power and influence. Once they get on that side of the House how quickly they forget. They even promised parliamentary reform when they sat on this side of the House. What do we get today? We get a few hours to debate a very important piece of legislation, a document of more than an inch thick. It is a total sham.

In this case it is even more odious because hundreds of thousands of retirees probably do not even know what this latest smash and grab is by the government. It reminds all of us of the former prime minister's admonition that the boys are cutting up the cash in the back room.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the pension account is concerned, all those affected will get their pension money regardless. In fact they will get their promised benefits for the law requires the government to make sure that there is always enough money in those accounts.

If we look at the editorial in the Toronto Star today entitled “Whose Pension Surplus”, the government has always, even in times of deficit, covered this particular plan.

The fearmongering we hear on the other side has absolutely no basis in fact. The government has done exactly what it has done in the past, that is keeping up with its responsibility of assuming all of the financial risk of the public service pension plan. We will do that again if and when the need arises.

Members on the opposite side would prefer that deficits be allowed simply to lie where the accounts, unattended, increase to no end and to no purpose. We are asking for a purpose.

Reform Party members in the past supported the government position. Talk about changing positions. They flip flop as if they are acrobatics on the other side. Canadian taxpayers feel secure in knowing that it is covered. We are clearly showing prudence and doing the right thing. Every member will in fact be protected by the actions of the government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Once again, I would like to thank all hon. members for being considerate and keeping their debate time to a minimum so as to allow as many members as possible to debate.

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 388

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?