Debates of May 11th, 1999

Youth

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we believe is that young people will provide the answers to some of the problems we face today.

We know that a large number of Canadians believe that the government has a role to play in eliminating racism. We have a plan called Action 2000 and together with the YWCA and the Boys and Girls Club of Canada we are engaging young people in action for the next year ending March 21, 2000 to come up with solutions to deal with racism in our country and to set up a positive relationship for harmony.

We also have an international component. The Prince of Wales, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and others in other countries have come on side to join with us in a global network of youth fighting racism.

Arts And Culture

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that our cultural protector, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has not only spent the $98,000 to fund the dumb blond joke book, but now has coughed up another $55,000 for Bubbles Galore , a feminist sex fantasy that won the Freakzone International Festival of Trash Cinema award.

On behalf of Canadians, we would like to ask why the Minister of Canadian Heritage feels that money spent on this kind of trash is in the best interest of Canadians.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that I have not viewed the film in question and I assume the same can be said about most members.

This is certainly one of those very serious cases where I would very much like to shorten the arm's length relationship which exists with the Canada Council and other agencies.

When the Mulroney appointed Canada Council members approved this grant some six years ago and when the Mike Harris Conservatives approved a similar grant some five or six years ago, I think they were seized of the arm's length policy which I am sure we would not want to put at risk for the sake of one bad decision.

Employment Insurance

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last fall we questioned the Minister of Human Resources Development on employment insurance quotas, and were unable to obtain any answers here in the House.

At the same time, journalists for the TVA network applied to the information commissioner to obtain details. The word came back today, and the commissioner has clearly stated that the minister put his own interests before those of the requesting parties and has defied the law all this time.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify not responding to our questions in this House, on the one hand, and defying of the Access to Information Act when inquiries are made by journalists, on the other?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I always answer questions from the Bloc Quebecois. I am always pleased to do so.

I give the best answers I can, because the matters raised in the House are very important to our government.

I will therefore look at the report to which the hon. member refers. Clearly, we have excellent access to information legislation, which is also very useful in ensuring that we have government transparency. I believe all Quebeckers greatly appreciate the transparency of our government, which is greater than elsewhere.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No 1.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to rise in the House after oral question period to make a speech, but I will take advantage of the fact that there are many members present right now, especially on the government benches, to share my thoughts on the infamous Bill C-78.

First, this bill is highway robbery. The government is trying to put its hands on $30 billion stolen from various civil service pension funds, and would have us believe it is doing so after due consultation and negotiation. This is bogus, and I want to say this while everybody, or nearly everybody, is still here.

Why is the government trying to do this kind of thing in today's economy, especially after four years of negotiations with the three groups involved? We are talking about the RCMP, the federal public service and the Canadian forces. Thirty billion dollars will be taken from these people.

Negotiations went on for four years, and the President of the Treasury Board even said these discussions were encouraging. He went as far as to say that these consultations could lead to a partnership that would implement, within the public service, the concept of a management board independent from the government. That statement was made in February 1998 by the President of the Treasury Board.

We have before us today Bill C-78, which totally ignores the discussions that went on for four years as well as the nice words of the President of the Treasury Board. I think the government is showing us its true face. We are seeing the insatiable appetite of the Minister of Finance, who wants to put his fiscal house in order at the expense of these workers.

It is easy to understand. The government has taken everything away from fishers and from victims of the lack of jobs, those people who used to be eligible to some unemployment insurance benefits, now known as employment insurance benefits. It has taken $20 billion from that program. Where to go from here? Wherever there is a little bit of money left. It is now turn to its own workers and alienating them. It will steal $30 billion from its own employees' pension funds.

It may seem somewhat odd that a Bloc member rise in this House on a principle and ask the government to come back to its declaration of intent of February 1998 with respect to developing a partnership with its employees. It may seem unusual because some people contend that all we want to do is to leave and slam the door behind us. I wish people would at least remember that, while the Bloc Quebecois was represented in this place, they were men and women of their word. We would wish that, when an issue arises, it be discussed openly, and not behind closed doors.

I am happy to see that my comments today are waking up members across the way. However it is unfortunate that we have to rise our voices from time to time. I can do it and I will do it.

What I find even more horrendous is the similarities between what is being done today and what was done to those who rely on the financial support provided through the employment insurance. They were robbed of $20 billion and now the same thing is going to happen to others.

If, at least, the government said it was going to use that money for equalization purposes, or take a part of that money so that less money has to be taken out of the employment insurance fund. Public servants are fortunate enough to have a job; financial support should be provided to those who fall victim to the lack of job opportunities, or at the very least the money should be used to reduce workers' contributions and to create new catalysts to revitalize the economy in severely affected regions.

We hear speculation that the finance minister will use it to pay down the accumulated deficit. That would be nice, but can someone tell me what good it would do to pay $30 billion on a debt now reaching some $600 billion? Especially since, according to the documentation I have received, these payments would be spread over a period of 15 years. I am a bit skeptical about this whole thing.

The second question we should ask ourselves—and I am not saying that it should not be done—is: How will the payments be calculated or estimated so that they have as little impact as possible on the exchange rate? We know full well that when the finance minister turns on the tap to pay off accumulated debts we owe to other countries, the next morning, Canadians will realize that they have not only been paying toward this debt, but they will continue to pay, because the exchange rate is dropping and they will have to pay more for imported goods.

The Bloc Quebecois wants the President of the Treasury Board to redeem himself, to face up to the Minister of Finance, who seems to carry more weight than him within the Cabinet, and to come to an agreement with the three groups concerned. An agreement should be negotiated with the public service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian forces.

Otherwise, what signal would we be sending out to Canadian corporations? If the Canadian government sets an example by taking money out of the public service pension plan, what will prevent Canadian corporations from doing the same with the accumulated surpluses in the pension plans of their own employees? This is the example it is about to set. It could be hazardous.

There have been lawsuits. I will let my colleague from Saint-Jean elaborate on that. But we will recall that that is precisely what the Singer Company did. The case is still before the courts, but I have yet to see the Minister of Human Resources Development put pressure on the company and tell it “You were caught helping yourself to your employees' pension fund”. Apparently, the case has not yet been settled. With Bill C-78, the President of Treasury Board is legitimizing a $30 billion robbery.

When I was knee-high to a grasshopper, whenever a kid from the neighbourhood was caught stealing candy from the pot at the convenience store—sometimes the general merchant would keep in a corner the extra candies he could not find place for on the shelves—that kid was called thief.

Today, a man who may have done the same thing as a kid—because we were all kids at one point—is stealing $30 billion and we call him Mister Minister. Furthermore, we are expected to say “Thank you very much”.

What Canadians should do now is pay very close attention to what the President of the Treasury Board is doing. They should monitor the adoption process of this bill. Of course we cannot put pressure on a government between elections. I hope however that people will remember who turned the tap off, who stole $30 billion, who gave such a bad example to Canadian businesses, which will no doubt feel free to help themselves to the private pension funds of their employees.

We should keep an eye on that—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am quite prepared to respect everybody's ideas, but there is no thief here. Nobody has stolen from anybody. We can exchange opinions, but I believe the word “stealing”, as the member used it twice, is unparliamentary.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must admit that the member who just spoke went a little too far. I ask him to be more judicious in his choice of words.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

You are indicating that I have only 30 seconds left. In such a short time, there is no other way I can describe somebody who takes something that does not belong to him. It is still stealing.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate why my hon. colleague who spoke just prior to me became so upset. I will not use the same words unless I get as upset as him, but what we see today is a government embarking upon the taking of money that belongs to Canadians.

We have to ask some fundamental questions about Bill C-78 at second reading. What does the bill do and to whom in the Canadian community? Let us talk about what it does. It takes the proceeds of pensionable earnings and reinvests them in the way the government wants instead of returning the money to individuals.

It is important for people to understand that the government can take the money, invest it or do with it whatever it wants. That means investing that surplus in multinational corporations or in whatever way the government would choose, not necessarily in the way the people who have paid into the fund would like to see the investment take place.

Let us ask who is affected. It includes everyone who has ever worked for the public service. Military personnel, the people who are currently fighting in Kosovo, the peacekeepers who have done the country proud and have ennobled the nation, are affected. The RCMP is affected. People who keep our streets safe and keep peace, order and good government are affected. The widows of our public servants are affected. There is an old saying in the Bible about taking the widow's mite. Those women are affected and women who have worked in the public service whose average annual pension income is about $9,600 are affected.

We are not talking about multimillionaires who are affected by the legislation. We are talking about average workers who have worked hard for their country in public service. They are the ones who are affected.

What will the legislation do to them? It certainly will not pay back to them the surplus from the funds invested by their hard work. We are opposing it because there is no provision to give this money back to the workers. The women earning $9,600 annually from her pension will not benefit from the government bill. In fact she will suffer directly because of it. Money that could go to improve her standard of living will instead go to whom? Perhaps the government could answer that question for us.

What does the bill say about priorities? What does it say about the government's commitment to community economic development? I will speak from my own riding's perspective because the vast majority of people in my riding are seniors.

Because of government policy many young people in the Atlantic region and in northern regions of the country leave for areas of high employment because of the high unemployment in those areas. That leaves retirees in those communities. That leaves in those communities people like the individuals I have already mentioned: people in the RCMP, military personnel who retire in the Atlantic region, widows of those who have worked for the public service or other retirees.

Because of changes to the employment insurance act in my own riding over the last seven or eight years over $30 million has been taken out of the economy in the form of employment insurance because of cuts.

The government now has an opportunity to say to the retirees in my community and in like communities across the country that is has a huge surplus in the pension fund and will make sure those people who paid for it reap some of the benefits.

If those people reap the benefits, then so do the small business owners on main street of every city in the country where there are retirees in the population. Those retirees will take the additional funds, to which we in the NDP believe they are entitled, and will invest them in their communities through purchasing power. This will create jobs in small communities and ensure the survival of small communities to some measure.

It is a small step the government could take to establish its commitment to economic survival of small communities. Unfortunately the government lacks either the courage or the foresight to take that step, or it is simply not a priority for it to ensure the survival of small communities by making sure that people who have lived in those communities all their lives or retire to those communities reinvest a part of the surplus to which they are entitled in those communities.

Many things could be said about the legislation. The government will say that the opposition is being unduly harsh and critical of the bill, is nit-picking at the bill, and perhaps not giving as clear an indication as it might. There is an opportunity for the government to rebut, but the government has chosen to invoke closure yet again on a most important piece of legislation.

If members of the opposition are somehow distorting the facts, if we are somehow incorrect, I challenge the government to put the bill forward and allow proper time for debate so that it can rebut the arguments we put forward. The government does not want to do that and we have to ask why. I think it is because the arguments put forward by members like me, by members of my party who oppose the bill, and by other members of the opposition cannot be rebutted by the government.

Why else would it shut down debate on an incredibly complex piece of legislation after four hours? This is the Kraft Dinner way of making law: put it in the microwave, turn it on for 30 seconds and hope it is done. We are not making a Kraft Dinner. We are making fundamental changes to legislation which affects individuals in every part of the country.

If we are incorrect in our analysis of it, I dare the government to come forward with its own facts and figures to rebut us. Rather than do that, it closes down debate. This is the second time I have had to address and bring the government to its heels on the issue of closure. The last time had to do with fundamental complex legislation.

It is not as if parliament does not have time to debate it. We spend hours in the House on many different pieces of legislation. When it comes to investing and taking money from a fund, the government does not want to talk about it. It invokes closure. I have not used the other word, but I am simply saying that the government is taking funds from something into which Canadian taxpayers have paid and to which we believe they are entitled.

Parliament was designed so that representatives of communities across the country could debate serious issues. This is among the most serious. When the government is playing with the financial gain of the workers of the country and we limit it to four hours debate, it is disrespectful of members of the Canadian public because it is their money, future and investment upon which we are limiting debate.

The bill talks to three issues. First, it talks about whom the government sets as a priority in its thinking. It is not the men and women of the public service, the surplus of whose pension funds is being taken away from them.

Second, it speaks to the priorities of the government in terms of community economic development. Clearly that is not a priority because we could reinvest those funds back into smaller communities.

Third, it speaks to the government's commitment to democratic debate in an open forum. Sadly the government's record on that issue is a failure.

On each of those counts I am afraid we have to give the government a failing grade. We are not alone in this regard. If we look at newspaper articles or happen to walk around Ottawa these days, we see normally mild mannered Canadians who respect the law and parliament carrying placards. They would just as soon be at work or at home getting their gardens ready. I am sure this is happening in other cities.

They know something is fundamentally wrong. They know the government is taking their money. They know they are entitled to the benefits. They are just making enough money to survive. They want to reinvest that money in their own families and their communities. It is a shame the government will not let them, and it is a shame it will close debate on this issue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel duty bound to speak to Bill C-78. For the benefit of those who are watching the debate, it should be pointed out that this is a bill enabling the federal government to take the surplus in the superannuation funds of public service employees, the Canadian forces and the RCMP.

Furthermore, it is aimed at changing the rules and preventing employee representatives from sitting on the board that will be setting the terms of their future retirement.

It is especially offensive that unionized public service employees and other employees who have their associations should not have their say in the management of their pension plan. It is beyond me.

Having been a public sector union representative in the past, I was involved in negotiations on the management of pension plans. The Quebec government agreed to share the management of these plans with the employee representatives. In the private sector, unionized companies are doing the same thing, by and large. It is perfectly natural that employees who contribute to the plan should have their say in the management of the fund and of surpluses.

In the present situation, actuaries tell us there is a $30 billion surplus, which is definitely not a small amount. If we take into account all participants in these plans, present employees and retirees included, we have over 340,000 people.

An amount of $30 billion is enormous, when one thinks about the surplus that has accumulated in the EI fund at the rate of $5 or $6 billion a year. Since the EI reform, all working Canadians contribute to the fund. But members should view the surplus in the public service funds in light of the fact that it took only four years, at a rate of $6 billion a year, to accumulate the current surplus in the EI fund. This means that the $30 billion amount is truly enormous. And it is a surplus.

The government wants to use the surplus as it sees fit in spite of the fact that workers contributed to it. The government says “Should the fund run a deficit, the government would be on the hook”. However what the government fails to say is that historically—and this is an important fact—between 1924 and 1998, government contributions represented only 48% of all contributions.

It means that the government has no right to take this $30 billion surplus, even though there is nothing in the law that supports the employees' position.

But there is more. Given that a large proportion of this surplus comes from interests paid on these huge amounts of money, it becomes even harder to understand the government's decision to use this $30 billion as it sees fit. To what use could this $30 billion have been put if the fund had been jointly managed, if the government had recognized it had no right to use this money for its own purposes? What could have happened? For one thing we could have improved benefits for a particular class of present or future retirees, or we could have decided to put the money to some other use.

Let us not forget that when Quebec was facing budget problems—as other provinces did—public service unions agreed to negotiate with the government the use of pension surpluses to help reduce the deficit.

This is therefore unconscionable, because the government has no right to take this money. It must be said. Some of my colleagues say it differently, but I say the government has no right to take all this money.

The second point I want to make is that this bill shows how the government is incapable of coming to an agreement with its employees, of recognizing that its employees are represented by unions or associations and that these unions or associations speak on behalf of employees and defend their interests.

The government is incapable of providing for a pension plan where the interests of employees will be taken into account. It is rather offensive—and this is the second time I use the word—that the government is planning on appointing the members of the committee that will defend the interests of employees. Will employees have adequate representation on this committee? Will a third of the members represent employees? No.

One of the eight members of this committee will be selected by the minister from among federal pensioners. Employees will not even have the opportunity to select their own representative. There is something wrong with the fact that this government is incapable of recognizing that employees should have a say with regard to the contributions they pay into their own pension plan.

Why should they have a say? Because, in this bill, the government is forcing the funds to invest in the financial market. This argument was not used very often. The government is saying that, from now on, the money from these pension plans will be invested in the market, with, of course, a percentage that the committee will have to be set aside to buy government bonds.

It states further that this is required for the sole purpose of maximizing returns. In today's world, if pension funds must be invested in the financial market, there could very well be transactions that the employees would not approve of.

Return on investments is not the only aspect to consider. More and more, in the face of disturbances caused by the financial markets in several countries, people are realizing that they cannot invest their money any which way, with maximum return as their only criterion. If employees are not involved in the management, they do not have any say in the matter.

I summarize. The government cannot legitimately use the $30 billion as it sees fit because employees did pay their contributions. At least half the surplus should be given back to them, and they should be consulted on how the money should be used and be involved in the decision making process.

Second, it is not normal that, unable to reach an agreement with its employees, the federal government would then decide that the pension funds, including the surpluses, will not be managed jointly.

Third, it does not make sense that the government would decide to invest these funds on the financial market without consulting the employees.

I find this hardly surprising, given that the government is unable to deal with anyone in a fashion other than authoritarian.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

I will try to share with my colleagues the views my constituents of Berthier—Montcalm have expressed about this bill. They had some very serious comments to make.

They said that this bill is another indication that the Liberal government is having trouble understanding that the working men and women are sick and tired of paying for the policies of this government, which prefers to take the easy way out.

As some of them told me “You do not need to be a rocket scientist to come up with such bills or to balance the budget the way the Liberals did it”.

When they needed money, what did they do? They helped themselves to the workers' contributions. When they needed more money, they cut transfer payments to the provinces, which means that the provinces are also paying part of it. Then they needed even more money and increased indirect taxes. They hid these increases in the budget. Now, they still need more money, so they are getting ready to take it from their workers' pension plans. This is totally unacceptable.

Workers are tired of seeing the government brag, especially with all its usual arrogance.

Bill C-78 is just one more bill in the long line of government measures that could be called “systematic pillage”. For several years now, the government has misappropriated funds belonging not only to Canadian workers, but also to Quebec workers.

The government has a simple strategy: spend in provincial jurisdictions by using surpluses from large funds established by workers. If the government at least abided by the Canadian Constitution—which Quebeckers have not even signed—there would less spending than there is now. The government would not be forced to take $30 billion from the pockets of workers.

After misappropriating the surplus in the employment insurance fund, the Liberal government is now going even further and grabbing the accumulated surpluses in the public service employees' pension funds.

The debate on Bill C-78, like the debate on the employment insurance fund, should be an opportunity to condemn the government's arrogance. It is a matter of respect for the thousands of workers who have worked all their life to secure the financial future to which they and their family are entitled. More than 487,000 retired contributors or their surviving spouses will be affected by the bill, without their opinion having really been taken into account.

These people will be subjected to measures which, according to the President of the Treasury Board himself, should have been negotiated and on which workers should have been consulted. I remind members that not so long ago, in February 1998, the President of the Treasury Board had proposed consultations on the pension plan.

He said, and I quote:

Consultations could lead to a partnership which would introduce in the public service the concept of a management board acting at arm's length from the government.

I stress the expression at arm's length, because it is extremely important.

The bill before us makes no provision for partnership. I do not see how the government can claim that the bill establishes some sort of partnership with the members of the public service. Bill C-78 is a unilateral act that permits the government to dictate the rules of the game.

The members of the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute of the Public Service are right to protest the way in which the government is preparing to appropriate their assets. I agree with the remarks of the alliance, which said, and I quote:

We can certainly not sit back and watch this government unilaterally take money out of the pockets of the contributors.

Not only is the Liberal government appropriating accumulated surpluses, but Bill C-78 prepares the way for future surpluses. In fact, in addition to taking the some $30 billion accumulated in the various public service pension plans, clause 96 of Bill C-78 will allow the government to take the surpluses of future plans.

Let us not forget that the advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act noted, and I quote:

The Committee's view is that the allocation of surplus should be in accordance with recommendations of the pension management board.

The same committee stipulated that all special negotiations on the subject had to recognize pensioners' interests.

Not only is the government blithely helping itself to something that does not belong to it, but Bill C-78 also proves that it is completely ignoring the recommendations made by the advisory committee in 1996.

This is typical of the Liberal government. It examines issues, keeps its backbenchers busy, produces wonderful reports, pens lovely letters, and comes up with great discussion topics, but it takes none of this into account when it comes time to deliver the goods.

This government's arrogance can also been seen in the provisions concerning the establishment of the public sector pension investment board. The provisions of Bill C-78 must be completely overhauled.

Once again, the government shows that it is incapable of taking workers' interests into consideration. Its bill does not guarantee sufficient worker representation on the board's board of directors. Let it be noted that the advisory board clearly recommended that six of the board's directors represent employers and six represent workers.

Bill C-78 has a number of other shortcomings. As my time is running out, I will only mention some of them.

For instance, the bill does not allow the board to establish independently the percentage of funds that must be held available for investment in Government of Canada bonds. Clause 50 provides that the governor in council may make regulations respecting the limitations to which the board is subject when it makes investments.

By setting too high a percentage of funds to buy government bonds, the government could significantly reduce the board's ability to achieve rates comparable to those of other pension funds.

In conclusion, I hope the government will support the very legitimate amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, which reflect what we heard from our constituents, in our ridings across Quebec.

The government would be well advised to take a serious look at these amendments. It should leave aside its tendency to indulge in petty politics and see the serious nature of our proposed amendments.

Again, these amendments did not come out of the blue, but from workers in Quebec—because, as Bloc Quebecois members, we work hard to protect the interests of Quebeckers—who came to meet us, and who want to see these amendments included in the bill. We cannot sit idly and let the government misappropriate $30 billion without saying anything. No way.

As one of my constituents said, “Tell the minister, if you see him”—and I do now—“that he should keep his hands in his own pockets. That way, we will be sure he is not going to take money out of our pockets”. This says it all. People in Quebec and the rest of Canada are fed up with this government, which takes money out of their pockets whenever it feels like it, for its own purposes.

By supporting our proposed amendments, the government would make honourable amends for its lack of respect toward public service employees. In fact, the least this government could do is to take into consideration the advice and opinion of those who are entitled to the content of the funds that it is about to steal from.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-78.

The intent of this bill was to improve the financial management of the three major public sector pension plans as well as to make technical changes. I am convinced that if the intent of the bill was strictly to improve those pension plans, the government would have the undivided support of all members of this House rather than just its own.

The bill will affect the RCMP, the armed forces and federal public servants. It will also establish a new plan for Canada Post employees at a future time.

With this bill the government has failed to truly take part in improving the benefits for all persons involved. As far as the discussion on the surplus is concerned, the government will argue that the surplus is strictly its own. It has come to be acknowledged in Canada and in a good many countries that when workers and employers invest into plans for the workers, if there is a surplus it is a shared surplus. In private business within Canada that is the acceptable road to go.

The government has once again failed to truly support the workers who in many cases give their lives for this country. The government has failed to commit to the pay equity process over the last 14 or 15 years. There has been a lot of rhetoric about how it believes in pay equity and a whole spiel of things. The government comes out with wonderful sayings but when it gets down to the brass tacks of things, it does not come through.

Once again the government has said to public sector workers in Canada and to all the others who are affected that they really are not valued and the government is not going to put anything extra into that plan, even though women will retire from the public service with a wonderful pension plan of $9,600 a year. This does not seem to be the infrequent case. It affects too many members. Those persons will have no opportunity to have further benefits from that pension plan.

In reality this bill will increase premiums at some point but the government will still be responsible for deficits in the plan. The Government of Canada did not want to have this deficit hanging over its head. The government is using the deficit of the public service pension plan as a ploy to get the deficit down, get rid of the pension plan and have it looked after by another medium.

However, the government wants to use the surplus to offset the government deficit. Meanwhile it is using the money to offset the deficit saying there is a surplus within the government. The government has been playing a shell game with the book figure on the public service pension plan surplus.

Another area within this bill that certainly could have used an improvement was in regard to the board. My hon. colleague from the Bloc has just mentioned that it will not ensure representation by the workers or the members involved in the plan.

Certainly on the advisory board different groups will have an opportunity to be represented. The advisory board can make recommendations of names, but the minister does not necessarily have to accept those names. I have seen situations where names have been put forward and the minister says, “No, I do not want that person”. Another name goes forth and another name goes forth until the minister possibly will have the board that he or she so chooses.

Sadly in a good many situations what ends up happening and what has led to a lack of credibility and no longer a show of support for a number of good organizations, is there are political appointments. The minister may not end up on the board or maybe not his cousin right now, or a former minister but there is the opportunity for other political appointments from political parties, somebody's wife, a minister's wife ending up on the board. There is nothing to restrict those kinds of things from happening.

Those types of issues have made Canadians leery of politicians and the whole process. As a result we all suffer from the lack of credibility the Canadian public will show for government and for all politicians.

Another area that has been of concern, and I am glad we have put forth an amendment to address that issue, is that the funds will be invested through the normal investment process, the market. There is a real situation arising and the workers, or individual Canadians who are part of these plans, may see their dollars being invested in companies such as Imperial Tobacco.

We are fighting so hard to decrease the number of kids who are addicted to tobacco. We are fighting the dollars that go into the tobacco industry as best we can. This is not because we do not believe there can be some kind of an industry with tobacco products. It is because we do not believe companies should be selling the product as healthy and that it is okay to smoke. Suck it in, end up sick, die, and the health care system is going to pick up the tab. As we fight that in parliament, the pension dollars will be at risk of being invested in those same companies as they sell their products in countries that maybe will not succeed in putting in some of the laws and regulations that I hope we are able to do to protect our citizens and certainly our youth.

Tobacco is an issue but there are others, to say nothing of companies that make arms or land mines, for that matter. Is there some way we can ensure that no dollars within these pension funds are going to support companies that are producing land mines? We are fighting the battle to have land mines banned throughout the world. We cannot get the U.S. to come on board. Can we ensure that these pension dollars will not be invested in those companies?

Unless we can ensure that happens, I think we are failing Canadians and the people in these pension funds who do not want their pension dollars to go to those companies. That is a major issue.

Some people do not think that ethical funds can survive or have an extra dollar put in their pockets. I would suggest that the people who strongly support ethical funds, if it were a difference of a dollar or so, quite frankly if it were a difference of a whole lot of dollars, they would still stand behind the investment in ethical funds. They should be given the opportunity to ensure that dollars coming out of their pension plan can be invested in ethical funds. That is an absolute must within this bill.

The mutualization of funds is taking place in some companies. The investor I deal with actually was shocked when I asked what was going to happen with the dollars that we had in our funds and whether he was going to ensure that they were invested in ethical funds. The question had not come up. He was taxed with the process of finally having to check to see what exactly could be done.

I can say quite frankly, if it were my dollar, I would not want it being invested in tobacco companies, land mine companies, or any kind of company that is not doing what is best for people worldwide. If we want to talk about globalization, then let us show a real interest and support for globalization in expecting the same things for Canadians and people all over the world.

The government's move for closure on this bill is really disappointing. It is not allowing a thorough and proper debate on an issue that affects so many Canadians. It was brought about quickly, it was slammed through committee quickly. Closure having been brought in did not allow Canadians overall and those affected to hear about this. Some have heard but others are just realizing now that their pension dollars are going to be affected. The government needs a little slap on the wrist again for invoking closure and for not allowing proper debate on an issue so important to the people investing in these pension plans.

I would encourage all members of this House to support the amendments which will at least give this act some credibility.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on this bill to establish the public sector pension investment board.

It is another measure designed to allow the Liberal government to take money from taxpayers. This government is very consistent. It always has a scheme to appropriate funds, and the one who designs these schemes is the Minister of Finance. Members will recall that, in recent months and recent years, it was the Minister of Human Resources Development who designed a scheme to take money from the unemployed. This resulted in a surplus of some $26 billion.

We know what the federal government did with these $26 billion. It created programs to interfere, once again, in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

This time, the Minister of Finance has called on another one of his accomplices to help him, and that person is none other than the President of the Treasury Board. He has asked him to find another way to grab funds. This scheme will allow the Liberal government to get its hands on $30 billion, and that money will not come just from anywhere: $14.9 billion will come from the public service pension plan, $2.4 billion from the RCMP pension plan and $12.9 billion from the Canadian forces pension plan.

The most frightening thing about this scheme is that, once again, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board did not hold any consultations regarding Bill C-78.

What do we see in this bill? We see that the President of the Treasury Board has ignored his commitments, just as the Liberal government has been doing since it came to power in September 1997.

How is the board going to be managed? Members should listen to this: the Liberal government, through its ministers, will appoint board members. First the chairperson will be appointed by the President of the Treasury Board in consultation with the other departments concerned.

The consultation will not take long, all they will have to do is check whether the nominee is a card carrying Liberal, how much he or she contributes to the Liberal Party coffers, and whether he or she approves the Liberals' mistreatment of the poorest of the poor. This is the main criterion.

Two members will be appointed by the President of the Treasury Board on the recommendation of the advisory committee. One will represent public service employees. Again, very partisan appointments, which will not represent the interests of the parties concerned by Bill C-78.

Then there will be a member chosen by the minister among pensioners.

Again, they will check whether the nominee belongs or contributes to the Liberal Party. This is how the government goes about making appointments.

In short, this means the government is once again poised to create a new Liberal commando that will take all necessary steps to attack the surpluses in three pensions funds.

It is very sad to see how the government has been operating lately. Furthermore, it is giving a bad example because, if it is going to unilaterally take money from pension funds of the three plans I have mentioned, there will be people in the private sector who will be encouraged to do the same, which could put at risk the surpluses in the pension funds of several dozens of employees. The federal government's action could have bad consequences for workers in Quebec and in Canada.

There is nothing much positive in this bill. We see once again the government using its old methods to take money from the poorest. Federal Liberals were very successful at this with the employment insurance fund, and they are ready to do the same with this bill to establish the public sector pension investment board.

How can we get federal Liberals to listen to reason? How can we make the people opposite understand common sense?

The more we move into this arrogant system, this authoritarian system that does not respect anything and that develops a more and more centralizing government, the more we see it ignores all jurisdictions, all institutions and all things that were established in the last 10 years.

To take the money it wishes to have at its disposal to implement more partisan programs, the government is prepared to do anything. It is prepared to invade all areas of provincial jurisdiction and private sector areas to raid billions of dollars.

If the President of the Treasury Board does not support the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, then my party will certainly reject out of hand the establishment of this public sector pension investment board.

We will vote against this bill, unless the government takes the time to go over our amendments. Given the way the Liberal government is behaving, the way it respects democracy and listens to the people, I fear that Bill C-78 will give them even more power to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers, of people who have worked hard and have served the government for many, many years.

To reward them, the government is taking money they have earned through their hard work and using it for some unprecedented propaganda, probably some programs to demonstrate once again how generous the government is, when its generosity is only about appointing its friends to manage this new board and extending a helping hand to Liberal supporters.

There was no consultation. Board directors will be appointed by ministers. Bill C-78 has me very concerned and I will definitely vote against it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I shall continue in exactly the same vein as my colleague, who gave a most informative speech, which I hope will strike a responsive chord on the government side, because I believe the hon. member for Lotbinière has really pointed out what is at stake.

I would have liked to vote in favour of the legislation. It contains an important provision which is close to my heart and which is something I have been fighting for over the past few years, that is the recognition of same sex spouses. I cannot, however, vote in favour of this bill. There is not one member of the Bloc who can vote in favour of the bill because it is unfair.

I believe if there is one thing that characterizes the government's actions, it is the total disrespect it has for its public servants. What we are asked to vote for is not insignificant. We are asked to pass legislation that will create the public sector pension investment board.

Of course, we would have expected that such a bill would have been arrived at as a result of the broadest possible consensus. If there is something sacred in democracy, it is the way we treat public servants who, as members know, are at the service of their fellow citizens. Often, public servants earn $28,000, $30,000, $32,000 or $35,000 a year. I am not talking about the mandarins. The majority of public servants I am talking about here are honest employees who work hard for their money. The government says their pension funds are none of their business.

If the government had been serious about establishing good public relations and harmonious labour relations, we would have before us a bill establishing a joint management board where Treasury Board and union representatives would work together, discussing the best ways to spend the money in the pension funds, particularly the surpluses.

The main purpose of the bill is to approve a mandate that would give the government authority to unilaterally appropriate the surpluses in the three plans.

We are talking about a total surplus of close to $30 billion. I will be more specific. There is the public service pension fund, with $14,9 billion; the RCMP pension fund, with $2,4 billion; and the Canadian forces pension fund, with $12,9 billion. Workers have contributed to these pension plans. That kind of money does not grow in trees.

If workers have contributed to these pension plans, how is it that they are not consulted when the time comes to use these funds, especially when there are surpluses, since this is what we are talking about.

We all know that ultimately it is a matter of respect for Canadian workers. There are now 275,000 contributors in these plans. That is a lot of people. There are certainly a few of those workers in your riding, Madam Speaker,. There are some in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in Lotbiniere, in Saint-Jean and in Châteauguay. They are honest workers who have contributed to their pension plan and who, under the provisions of this bill, will not be consulted about the use of the surplus.

Earlier, a member took offence at the fact that some of my colleagues used the word “stealing”. It is true that the word “stealing” is very significant. It is true that we should use it most sparingly. Members know how careful the members of the Bloc Quebecois are with words.

However, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could suggest another word because I cannot find any other to describe an action by which someone pinches, appropriates, uses or grabs funds that belong to someone else.

Madam Speaker, if you think that this is not stealing, then I think the issue will have to be referred to the French Academy or the French Canadian Academy. From our point of view, when someone uses something that does not belong to him, I believe that we as an opposition party, have no other choice but to talk about stealing.

We are not dealing here with pilferage, or shoplifting. This type of action is comparable to what highwaymen did when they robbed people of all their hard earned possessions.

I am convinced the word used by my colleague—and I say this with all due respect—was the proper term.

The saddest thing about this bill—and I think I am right but the member for Saint-Jean can correct me if I am mistaken—is that I believe there were negotiations that went on for three years. Three years of negotiations cannot be simply brushed away and completely ignored in the balance that must be achieved in managing the public service in a responsible way.

The question I ask all the government members in the House is this: why not follow the model that exists in many other areas where everything associated with labour relations is done jointly? It is the Quebec model: the various parties sit own at the same table, employers, public servants, union representatives and, of course, the workers themselves. They try to find solutions and they succeed.

From what we can see in the structure proposed by the President of the Treasury Board—and we have no reason to question his personal integrity at this time, that is not what this is all about—why is he letting himself be sucked in by his government when he should be the staunchest defender of public servants in parliament?

Why is this minister, who, I repeat, should be the defender of public servants' rights, letting himself be completely blinded by his government and why is he accepting to sponsor a bill that will steal from these workers part of the surpluses that rightfully belong to them? I will remind members once again that this money comes from contributions paid by the workers.

The member for Longueuil, who knows this issue well and who will certainly rise to take part in this debate in a few minutes, tells me to remind you that clause 10 is quite important. This is no time to be reading the newspaper. I see some members doing that, but I would ask them through you, Madam Speaker, to listen to what I am saying.

Clause 10 says the President of the Treasury Board shall establish a committee of eight members to make a list of candidates from which the 12 directors of the board will be selected. This means that no union representative will be appointed directly under this bill. This is the tragedy of this bill.

Members know full well that the government will appoint people who embrace its philosophy and who share its views. There is a term to describe this kind of practice: it is called patronage.

I see that my time has expired, Madam Speaker, so I ask you to recall the bill and to ask the pages to take up all the copies.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.