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.