Debates of May 11th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I am only too pleased to follow procedure. Once again, if the member does not stop doing this, I will keep getting up. He has no business saying what he said. How is it that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is never here at the noon hour?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe that what we have here is an argument, not a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bourassa, who is boasting about following procedure, should be reminded of a very heated discussions he was engaged in last Thursday during Oral Questions. The only member who was called to order by the Chair was the member for Bourassa. The Speaker asked him to lower his voice.

I am not, therefore, tempted to get into a debate with him. Anyway, we are getting to know the member for Bourassa. Those listening to us know what he is like. They know he is an agitator, so I will not get into that.

I will continue, systematically and seriously, the speech I began earlier.

After the systematic theft from the employment insurance fund surplus—I am pleased to see that term did not get a rise out of the member for Bourassa. I said “systematic theft from the employment insurance fund”. We should just let him sleep on, or go on home—.

The Liberal government is trying to get its hands on the surplus that has built up in the pension funds of public service employees, as well as those that are yet to come. These are astronomical sums, to put it mildly. As of March 31, 1998, we are talking of somewhere around $30.2 billion in surplus. That is $14.9 billion for the public servants, $2.4 for the RCMP, and $12.9 for the Canadian Forces.

Our party acknowledges the necessity of ensuring the long-term viability of the system. In our opinion, it is possible to have this while respecting the thousands of Canadian and Quebec workers who have contributed to the plan. The present plan has some 275,000 people contributing to it, and 160,000 pensioners plus 52,000 surviving spouses drawing from it.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are telling me I have just about 45 seconds left. It is too bad I lost the thread of my speech because of the disturbance by the professional agitator from Bourassa.

I will conclude by saying that our party will be bringing in some very serious amendments. We want to see each pension plan have a board, in keeping with the recommendation by the advisory committee report tabled in December 1996. In addition—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We heard nasty words last week. We heard the word “collabo”, and now we hear the word “agitator”. I am concerned for the members opposite.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is not a point of order. This is a matter of debate.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to enter into the debate on Bill C-78, an act to establish the public sector pension investment board and to amend several associated acts.

Bill C-78 is just one more bill in the history of the Liberal government that attempts to set legislation based upon poor policy development. Sixty-two per cent of the public elected representatives to this side of the House. Regardless of our political stripes on this side of the House, we have all been in opposition to Bill C-78.

I represent the good people of Nanaimo—Cowichan and they have told me loud and clear that they do not want to listen to the empty promises of the Liberal government any longer. They have told me that when a government does not listen to the people then it is no longer the people's government.

The people I represent here today are gravely concerned about a government that does not act logically to protect the nation's children from pedophiles who seek to harm children through child pornography. They do not trust a government that discriminates against fair family taxation.

The people of Nanaimo—Cowichan do not look favourably upon a government that turns its back on those who need our help, such as the hepatitis C victims. Indeed, the people of my riding are incensed in the way that the B.C. government, and now this Liberal government, have treated them with complete disdain over the Nisga'a agreement.

Now the government wants to have the trust of the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan in order to quickly and quietly push Bill C-78 through the House of Commons.

In the few short hours that my hon. colleagues and I will have to debate this bill, I do not anticipate that the Liberal government will understand what the opposition is saying. Some will hear but few will listen.

Motion No. 32, put forward by my hon. colleague from St. Albert, speaks about the need for government to table in parliament copies of the appointments made to the public service pension advisory committee. I feel it is imperative that this board be made up of qualified individuals. The board cannot be made up of political appointees. This is not the place for more public trough feeding. This is a place for expertise and applied knowledge, not patronage appointments.

In turn, the board must be accountable for its investment decisions. Accountability is imperative. Plumb political appointments cannot provide the expertise and transparent accountability that is required for a board such as this. It applies likewise to Motion No. 33 regarding the liquidation of the surplus into the government coffers.

Let us be perfectly clear about what the Liberal government is planning to do with these surplus funds. It is planning to put the funds toward the balancing of the books. During this parliament, the government has purportedly balanced the books. The real questions are: How was this done, and where did the money come from to balance the budget?

The budget has been balanced purely and simply on the backs of taxpayers, not on the reduction of the bureaucratic nightmare that exists all around us. There have been more than 30 tax increases by the Liberal government since it came to power. Bracket creep and numerous other taxes are alive and well.

This budget has been balanced on the backs of every taxpayer in Nanaimo—Cowichan and every other Canadian, not through wise fiscal management. That is what the Liberal government wants to do with this money today.

As the issue of accountability is imperative, the question that begs to be asked is where and how will the $30 billion be put and used.

I see lots of writing in this bill, over 200 pages worth, but I do not see the plan of action for the surplus. Where is the plan? This bill is akin to the signing of a blank cheque. Mr. Speaker, I know both you and I are not in the habit of signing blank cheques. I would ask my hon. colleagues to tell us the plan. We have yet to see the real plan for other moneys this government has taken from the federal piggy bank. I will ask the question anyway. Where and what is the plan? I would welcome the answer, but frankly I do not expect to hear a full answer to this question.

Rather than being prudent and cost cutting, the Liberal government is looking for every available dollar that does not affect its spending habits. I would strongly urge the government to leave the surpluses inside the respective pension plans. This is imperative for the security and solvency of the plan members. Without these funds remaining within the respective pensions, the risk to taxpayers from potential shortfalls is enormous. There have been shortfalls in the past and it is conceivable there will be shortfalls in the future. I say this not out of fearmongering but rather out of a look at demographics.

It is common knowledge that the baby boomers, and I am one of them, are rapidly approaching their retirement years. We are not close to reaching the peak of potential retirees yet. As more and more people begin to access their pensions, there will be a greater and greater effect upon the funds within the pension. Foolish spending today will certainly cause problems in the future. The financial strain on the pension fund will continue to grow, not shrink.

Surely this is a recipe for disaster. This is not being fiscally responsible. Bill C-78 only adds to the fancy bookkeeping. The Liberal government should not have access to this $30 billion.

The Liberals have been saying they are putting this bill forward for the betterment and benefit of the taxpayers of Canada. This is nonsense. What Bill C-78 proposes puts the taxpayer at greater risk, not less. Although the surplus in the fund is enormous, there is a distinct possibility that a deficit could develop in the future. There is a precedent for this statement. This has occurred in the past. In fact, past deficits have cost the very taxpayers that this Liberal government is purporting to protect a whopping $13 billion. That is a very big number, one that should not be foisted upon the taxpayers of Canada.

My office has received numerous calls and letters on this bill. The calls and letters to my office are saying words that we cannot utter, like “stealing”, “theft”, “criminal”, and “leave my money alone”.

The union representatives state that it is unconscionable that the government would seize the surplus. They are calling this a unilateral decision. They clearly make the claim that the money belongs to the workers and I agree wholeheartedly with them. The federal Liberals balanced the books partially on the backs of the federal civil servants and now they want to take away the security of their public pension plan.

I have several other concerns regarding Bill C-78. One is that the auditor general will not have the right to perform an annual audit. In fact, the board's auditors will not even have to report to parliament. This is simply wrong. Without public accountability, questions regarding the transparency of the whole process will and should arise.

By comparison, the auditor general is currently not prepared to sign off on several past government budgets. Why on earth would we in parliament deny him the right to assure all Canadians, especially those who are in the pension fund itself, that their funds are secure? This is wrong. This bill takes powers away from the auditor general and it causes me great concern.

If this government wants to ensure that it is directly accountable to the people and that the process is transparent, people need to be assured there is not a separate set of rules for Bill C-78. Why should the same rules not apply to all legislation? Is there a problem with the auditor general doing his job in this capacity, or is there something else that is being hidden here?

In conclusion, I have many concerns with Bill C-78. I am concerned with the way the board is being set up. I am concerned with the accountability of this government and its fiscal accountability, or as many would say, its lack of accountability. I am concerned that the government is pushing through this bill with its enormous fiscal implications in such a short period.

I believe that if nothing else, the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague from St. Albert need to be given very serious consideration. Without those amendments I cannot support Bill C-78 in its present form.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment Board and 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, the Canada Post Corporation Act, and so on.

This bill is of particular interest to me since I rose several times in this House to defend the rights of seniors as a spokesperson for seniors and seniors organizations.

The purpose of this bill is to make changes to public sector pension plans. Contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board said, federal employees and retirees are concerned about these changes. The Bloc Quebecois is obviously against this bill.

The amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed at implementing a true joint management system for public sector pension plans.

On April 12, the President of the Treasury Board stated in this House that federal employees should not worry about the future. He said, and I quote:

Therefore, current and past federal public service employees need not worry about the future, because it is precisely to preserve the financial future of these pension plans that the government decided to act.

The pension plans of the public service, the RCMP and the armed forces have, in recent years, accumulated a total surplus of some $30 billion.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot allow the government to act unilaterally and make major changes to the employees' pension plans. It is a rip-off.

The Bloc Quebecois has always said the same thing about pension plans. They must not be changed to the detriment of seniors. This is certainly not the first time the government has tried to reduce its debt to their detriment. Seniors have always spoken out strongly.

The consultation of government's partners over several months was a failure. So there was no agreement on the necessary reforms.

Clearly, there is some similarity in strategy here with the federal government's control over the surplus in the employment insurance fund, which has accumulated in recent years. The federal government claims that this surplus belongs to it, as do the surpluses that concerns us in Bill C-78.

Seniors are no fools. I recently attended a demonstration on Parliament Hill. The message was clear: the surpluses belong to those who are retired, and they will never let the government appropriate it.

Furthermore, seniors do not want the government to appoint their friends to manage the surpluses by unilaterally creating a public sector pension investment board according to its criteria on equity.

This board cannot be independent of the government. I share the opinion of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who mentioned on April 12 that the government should follow the example of the Caisse du dépôt et placement in Quebec.

This is how the Bloc Quebecois came to ask the government to honour its promise to submit the management of the public service pension plan to a real system of joint management. A management board comprising representatives of the employer, employees and retired employees must be set up.

Bill C-78 does not move in that direction. The purpose of the joint management council proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would be to set up a pension fund, to plan its financing, to manage any surplus or deficit, to manage the plan itself and to ensure adequate financing for the benefits to be paid.

Also, all of the legislation concerning the federal public sector pension plans must be subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Consequently, a number of judicial rules would control the use of any future surpluses. The regulations established under this piece of legislation will set out the criteria the employers will have to meet.

Pensioners want to be treated fairly. It is normal that the surplus that belongs to them be used in part to increase their benefits. The federal government's unilateral misappropriation of $30 billion is a true insult to seniors. The surplus should belong to both the employer and the employees.

We agree that pension plans should be allowed to be invested on the stock market, but we do not agree with the government taking the $30 billion surplus. As I said earlier, it is a rip-off. The surpluses should be used on the one hand to improve the pension plan and, on the other hand, to set up the retirement fund being created under Bill C-78.

Losses can also be incurred on the stock market. That is something we have to think about. The federal government should not neglect the people who worked all their lives to be able to enjoy a decent and well-deserved retirement.

Let us recall the “Goodbye Charlie Brown” episode, under the Mulroney government. Many seniors fight for their rights, and we should not forget that 1999 is the international year of the older person. Seniors should get everything they are entitled to. A commemorative stamp is not enough.

Also, this year's theme for international women's day was “Going strong”. Retired women are something of a majority among retired public servants, and they are sometimes among the most underprivileged. In the past, the Bloc Quebecois has often complained about continuous intrusions by the federal government.

For example, the federal government tried to put in place for 2001 a new benefit based on family income, which would have the effect of depriving a number of women of their only independent source of income. We realize that Bill C-78 will have an impact on the lifestyle of many retired people.

In 1995, the federal government also tried to amend the Income Tax Act, through Bill C-282, to eliminate the deduction for taxpayers over age 65 who are entitled to the disability income tax credit.

This in further evidence that the federal government is trying to pay off its debt on the backs of the underprivileged, and more particularly senior citizens.

The Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-78, because it will allow the government to grab the $30 billion surplus in the public service pension plans. The amendments the Bloc Quebecois has moved are needed to correct this flaw.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 1 amendments to Bill C-78.

This bill goes to the heart of an issue that is very important to many constituents in the ridings of all members in the House. It concerns individuals in the military, members of the RCMP, approximately 300,000 retirees, and nearly one-third of a million people in other public service activities. We oppose the bill, not for the sake of opposition but on some very important ground.

We need to go back in history. The pension plan was constructed a number of years ago. It was based on interest rates, inflation and salary increases. As a result of a combination of those factors we see now a substantial and marked surplus within the pension plan.

The government wants to take the pension surplus and put it into general revenues to use as it sees fit. Does that surplus in that pension plan belong to the government? No, it does not. The surplus belongs to the people who paid into the plan. Furthermore, the money that was put into it does not belong to the government. It belongs to the taxpayers.

Rather than taking the money away from the people who contributed it, a better way of dealing with it would be to lower the contributions they have to make without changing the amount of money they would get back. Although the pension plan is enjoying a surplus at this point in time, that has not always been the case. If we look back in history, when there has been a shortfall the taxpayer has been on the lam for putting $13 billion into the plan to pay it off.

While we are enjoying a surplus at this point in time, this will probably not be the case in the future. Interest rates will not always be as low as they are now. Nor will inflation. Although there has been a salary freeze for the last eight years at least, salaries will go up and have gone up. That will translate into an obligation on the part of the scheme to pay out more pension money.

We should maintain that surplus. It would be a buffer to ensure that the taxpayer will not have to put in more money at the end of the game to buttress the plan.

We as a party would like to speak to a number of other issues regarding the bill. One such issue is privatization. Previously the government put the contributions of workers into low interest bearing but safe rates of return vehicles. That money could also be put into vehicles that are safe but generate larger amounts of money. The bill does that, and this is what we support.

We only hope the government will do the same with the CPP. All of us who put money into the CPP know that it goes into something which generates a very small amount of return. It would be far better to put it into the market, into higher interest bearing and safe vehicles. We applaud that.

On the issue of same sex benefits, my colleague put forth a very eloquent solution to the thorny issue of what people may or may not be doing behind closed doors. My colleague mentioned something called a designated partnership.

A designated partnership could be with a brother, a sister, a family member or a friend. Both parties would be engaged in a reciprocal relationship and have reciprocal responsibility. For example, two sisters could live together for a long period of time and take care of each other. If one of them were to pass away, why should the remaining sister not benefit from her deceased sister's pension?

Obviously it was a reciprocal, long term relationship, a long term commitment between two people. This would be fair and would enable people in long term relationships to give their pensions to someone who has taken care of them in a reciprocal fashion. It would get rid of the ridiculous discussions and the thorny legal descriptions of what people may or may not be engaging in, in their personal lives.

If we take that out of the picture, the concept of a designated partnership would be fair to a wider variety of Canadians who engage in living conditions which are far more inclusive than what we have been discussing the last while.

PSAC has been very adamant about not supporting the bill. It has been in strong opposition to it because of the way it treats workers with respect to the government's plan to pocket the $30.1 billion surplus. It wants to use that surplus to pad its surpluses and tell the public it is doing a better job than it actually is in terms of how it is managing the country's finances.

We could do some very constructive work in terms of looking at what the government is trying to do with this surplus. The surplus is being reorganized in a very questionable fashion. Accountants would call it a questionable accounting practice, which enables the government to take $30 billion through subterfuge and put it into something it should not be in. It is taking it away from the workers who have earned money and put it into the plan. It is taking it from the workers and putting it somewhere else.

We are thankful the military managed to get a raise. We applaud the government for doing that. However, the working and living conditions of many people in the military have not changed substantially. In Victoria the cost of living is very high. Men and women who work for the military have a very difficult problem making ends meet, particularly in terms of accommodation. Three years ago we proposed a plan to the then minister of defence, General Dallaire, and the assistant deputy ministers involved which would enable military personnel to live more comfortably.

The plan involved making the accommodation assistance allowance applicable to all people in the military. The accommodation assistance allowance would be non-taxable. The rents that were increased egregiously, even though salaries were frozen, would be rolled back to the point in time when they were frozen. Although they have had an increase in salary, it pales in comparison to the rent increases that have occurred for their homes.

Another thing can be done to make life a little better and more comfortable for hardworking men and women in uniform. They could enable the base commanders to have more power and control over the economics of their bases. They could find some ingenious and innovative ways to generate funds for people on bases.

Historically the RCMP has not been the best paid police force in the country. Neither does it want to be, but it wants to be paid fairly. RCMP wages have plummeted to the bottom of the barrel. The way in which its salaries have been calculated has changed over the last few years.

The government has a different method of calculating the salaries of the RCMP officers so that they are now among the lowest paid police officers in the country. I implore the solicitor general and the minister of finance to pay the RCMP a salary that is at least in the middle with respect to other police forces in the country. They would find that to be fair and reasonable, given the economic circumstances we as a country are in today.

Members of the RCMP do not have the finances for the tools of their job. As we saw in my province of British Columbia, they do not even have money to put their cars back on the road after having been bashed up. They do not have the money to prosecute serious criminals. As a result serious criminals, particularly people in organized crime, are being let out and not being prosecuted, convicted and put behind bars. The reason is that the resources are not there for them to do the job.

Many RCMP officers and other police officers across the country are working for free because they feel compelled or obligated to put criminals behind bars. Unfortunately the government is not giving them the power, the resources and the tools to do their job.

I strongly urge the government to listen to the suggestions of members from this party and others and to implement them for the benefit of people who work in the public service.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-78, which aims at establishing a kind of investment board to manage the pensions of public servants, members of the RCMP and of the Canadian armed forces.

According to accounting charts submitted by actuaries—not the opposition's acutaries but those of the government, the people in power—at present the surplus in these three pension funds totals $30.2 billion.

This morning, I listened with great interest to members of the governing party who see themselves, as always, as those who have the absolute truth. They were telling us that they could not make a mistake and that they knew and understood the issue because of their skills as managers and that the surplus had to be deposited in the consolidated revenue fund, that is in the hands of government. There was no doubt in their mind about that.

When a government has a majority in the House, it can say anything false it wants, and no one can force it to do its duty, because it is convinced that it cannot be wrong since it has a majority in the House.

Last week in committee, I listened to the witnesses, among them distinguished actuaries, people who work in investments, and also pensioners. We had the Public Service Pensioners Association, which was represented, if I am not mistaken, by Mrs. Jeanne Smith. I asked her what amount a retired public servant got.

Of course, there are several categories of retired public servants. There is one apart from the others, consisting of generals and very high ranking members of the Canadian forces, who enjoy a pension equivalent to that of a cabinet minister having worked for 30 years and thus being entitled to the maximum. Those people receive a pension of $115,000, $120,000 or $130,000 a year. The day after their retirement, they are hired at a salary of $180,000, $200,000 and even $250,000, based on my information, to act as consultants for the Canadian armed forces and the government, to help the government make decisions.

Most people—even though it is disgusting to see such cases as these—do not, the day after they retire, sit in the same chair, use the same telephone and carry out the same duties as the day before, while collecting an annual pension of $115,000, $120,000 or $130,000 and getting a new salary that is sometimes just as exorbitant to do the same job, but as a consultant. This is outrageous.

However, this is not the case for the average member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I asked Mrs. Smith how much a retired public servant gets. She gave me a few examples. A public service employee who worked for 23 years and who is living alone collects an annual pension of $8,900 or $9,000. With 30 years of service, that annual pension is $15,000. These are gross, not net figures.

Along with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead—who sits on my left and whom I salute—I visited military bases across Canada last year, with the Standing Committee on National Defence. We saw military personnel housed in PMQs, which are houses that were built in the middle of the century, immediately after World War II. These houses have not been maintained or renovated.

It is now unthinkable to live in a house that would not have a hood to vent cooking odours above the stove. Yet, this was common in all the PMQs that we visited, since they were built in the middle or late forties, when these hoods were a great luxury.

It was the same everywhere. When the committee tabled its report, it recommended a considerable improvement in how we house our soldiers, as well as how we pay them, so that they can live decently. But all these recommendations were naturally shelved. The government did not want to hear them. It gave a paltry increase to soldiers to ease its conscience. With their minds easy, the Liberal members opposite are busy congratulating themselves. The government came up with a few million dollars to increase soldiers' pay, but their living conditions are completely unacceptable.

I see the member who just sat down, the committee chair, giving me a look. But, at the time, this member was as disgusted as I was at the conditions in which our soldiers lived and worked. Naturally, when they are paid so little during their working lives, they cannot be expected to have built up a huge pension.

The government is benefiting in all sorts of ways. When it underpays its employees, its contributions as an employer are lower, because these are a percentage of salary. The government is ahead on all counts, so members opposite can sleep easy. They say that the government has contributed its share, that there are surpluses, and that, when there were deficits, the government naturally stepped in to help.

I would agree that the government—because this is what it wants, and because it made up deficits in the fund in the past, although it has paid itself back by now—should be able to recover some of its past outlay, if it thought it made one, which is far from certain.

But before helping itself to the accumulated surplus in the pension funds, the government should try to improve the plans, not for the retired generals I mentioned earlier who are now pulling in $250,000 or $300,000 annually, but for those at the bottom of the totem pole. These employees have kept their noses to the grindstone all their lives without asking too many questions. And they certainly were not asking whether their pension plan was well run. Their energy went into doing what they were paid to do.

They trusted their employer, but it failed them miserably. Today, there is a cumulative surplus of $30.2 billion and the government will grab it and put it in its pockets, leaving these people, most of whom are below the poverty line, to try to make ends meet and unable to enjoy a well deserved retirement. We never had cause to complain about our federal public servants. But once they retire, we complain about them, and say that they get too much. If the government had something to complain about, it should have said so before they left the public service. Now it is too late.

The Bloc condemns this approach, the same one that was used in regard to EI fund. The federal government long ago stopped contributing to the EI fund, but there is a $15 billion surplus in the fund. All workers pay into the fund, but very few receive benefits. We are told that only 35% of the workers are eligible to benefits, even though 100% of them pay premiums.

Once again, the government has grabbed the surpluses. This is misappropriation of funds. Since this morning, all opposition parties agree on that. The government must stop stealing. It is Robin Hood in reverse: it takes from the poor to give to the rich. In the original scenario, Robin Hood took from the rich to give to the poor.

For all these reasons, the population, the civil servants, particularly the RCMP officers, who are not known as complainers—one must be very committed to join the RCMP—and proved long ago that they were ready to make many sacrifices to be members of the RCMP, wear the stetson and ride a horse, all those people do not complain, but they must have something to live on.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of debate today in the House on Bill C-78. The opposition parties have stated some very sound arguments as to why the government should reconsider the bill and look at the amendments that are before us.

I would like to correct the record on something that was mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Mississauga West. He seemed to indicate that there were only 15 amendments before us at this stage of the bill. I believe it is well over 50 amendments.

A lot of the amendments that have been put forward by opposition parties, the Reform Party and my hon. colleague from St. Albert, have to do with accountability and the fact that the $30 billion the government is raiding in this pension grab is certainly not set up in this piece of legislation to the degree of accountability that we would like to see. I just wanted to mention that off the top.

The bill also does not give any seats on the board to those individuals who this bill directly affects. An advisory committee will be set up, but we all know what that means. When the Liberals set up an advisory committee it means we will have a little meeting group where we can raise our concerns, but none of our concerns will be listened to. Well, they may listen but they are not actually going to do anything about them. They will just let us get together and have a talk and maybe that will make us feel better. It is almost like giving us a pat on the head and sending us out the door.

If the government was serious about this, it would allow these individuals to sit on the board. That is quite obvious.

I hear members from the Tory party agreeing. Members of the opposition are in agreement that the bill is a flawed piece of legislation and that is why we had to bring forward so many amendments. Hopefully the government will listen, but alas, our requests often fall upon deaf ears.

I want to get to the premise of the government's argument for the bill. Its premise is to say “Trust us. We are the government. We'll take care of this money, the $30 billion. We'll pay down the debt”. Why in the world would we believe that given the record of the Liberal government?

I am going to point out something which I think is obvious to all people. If we are trusted to be prudent and take care of a small amount of money, in whatever our job or our responsibility is, we will then be given more responsibility to take care of a greater amount of dollars. If we are able to manage that well, then we will be given the care of more and more dollars.

If the government was doing that then perhaps we could trust it to take care of the $30 billion in the pension surplus, the clawback of that hard-earned money from those individuals who have contributed to the fund. However, I want to point out a glaring example of how the government manages dollars. It is an issue that some have touched on in the House earlier today and one which is before us in media on the front page of one of the national papers today. It has to do with how the government has mismanaged some $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars, a fairly substantial sum I would think to the average Canadian. For most people that would be the amount of their salary if they had a well paying job. Unfortunately it is not even that for many folks. Fifty-five thousand dollars is a large sum of money. It is shocking to hear where the government spent this money. The Liberal government spent $55,000 on the funding of a pornographic movie production called Bubbles Galore . The producers of this film thanked the Government of Canada on their website which is directly linked to the Government of Canada's webpage. That is unbelievable. How could this happen? The Liberal government dedicated $55,000 of taxpayers' dollars to that expenditure.

This is a government that tells us it has the best interests of Canadians at heart. This is a government that says “ Do not worry about us. Send us your tax dollars. We will cut, slash and burn health care by $20 billion”—

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It behooves the House that all members participating in this debate stay closely to the topic at hand. We are talking about Bill C-78. We are talking about the superannuation act. I simply request the hon. member, instead of divulging into gratuitous conversation about other matters which he knows have no relationship to the bill, to stick to the matter at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary is correct. We are debating a series of amendments to the act. Members' remarks should somehow be relevant to the amendments to the bill. I am not sure if the movie is relevant, but perhaps the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette has some way of tying it in. If so, we are all looking forward to hearing it.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been present earlier to hear the debate he would have heard me talk about the different amendments. He wants to shut me down now so I do not embarrass the government by bringing to light this wasteful spending.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We do not seem to be on the same wave length here. There are a series of amendments before the House. If the parliamentary secretary has another point of order I will hear it but I hope it will be very brief.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to the presence or absence of a member in the House. It is not a point of this debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the point has been made. I have invited the hon. member to bring his remarks within the ambit of the amendments before the House. I think that is a relevant point.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that tells us, under the premise of their whole argument on the bill and on these sets of amendments, to trust it with this $30 billion and it will be applied to the debt. That is what the member for Mississauga West said earlier and what other members of the government have said throughout the debate on the bill.

This is a government that wants people to trust it with the dollars they send to Ottawa but, as I have just pointed out, the dollars have been wasted. If the government wants people to believe that it is serious about applying $30 billion which is indicated in Bill C-78 and the accountability measures mentioned in the amendments that are before us—many of them brought forward by my colleague for St. Albert—it would look at these amendments.

Instead, we hear members of the government rising on points of order and trying to stop debate when things get a little dicey in terms of its record. It must defend that record because it is the government. It is our job as opposition members to point out the record of the government. If government members do not want to hear that, they do not have to be here to listen to it.

Members from the NDP, the Reform Party, the Bloc and the Progressive Conservative Party will continue to point out the government's failure in its fiscal responsibility before the people of Canada and in the House. This is a clear example of a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I would like to challenge any Liberal member from that side to stand up and defend the expenditure of $55,000 on the production of a pornographic film.

[An hon. member]

It has nothing to do with the amendments.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a member on the government side says it has nothing to do with the amendments. I will say it for the third time. The premise of the government's argument on Bill C-78 is that it wants Canadians to trust it with the expenditures of these funds, which are Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. That is the premise of the government's argument for this bill. It is also the premise for rejecting the amendments that the opposition is bringing forward.

I state once again that if the government wants to seriously have the trust of Canadians, then it had better do a better job on accountability in terms of taking care of taxpayers' dollars, such as the $30 billion surplus in the pension fund that it says it is going to apply to the debt. How can we know that to be the case when we see these examples popping up over and over again of the government wasting taxpayers' dollars?

I can understand why the government would rise on points of order to try to shut down this line of debate because it is embarrassing for it. It is very embarrassing.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

And it should be.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The member on the opposition side says that it should be embarrassing. Absolutely it should be embarrassing. I know that many members of the Liberal government are embarrassed by this expenditure as well. I think that as parliamentarians we are embarrassed by it. How could that possibly have happened?

This is an area of financial responsibility which falls under the direction of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can that minister, who says that she stands to defend women's rights, allow an expenditure of $55,000 of taxpayers' money for a pornographic video? I cannot understand it.

The premise behind my argument is that if the government wants us to trust it with taxpayers' dollars, then it had better start showing us that it is accountable.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the third reading debate of Bill C-78. I understand that we are dealing with a group of motions this afternoon. I want to refer specifically to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, as well as Motions Nos. 9 and 10. These are motions which have been put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 deal with the ethical investment of the pension fund and specifically suggest that they not include tobacco sales or manufacture or promotion. They also would exclude pollution or environmental degradation, labour standards and practices which are inferior to those required by law in Canada, and any practice or activity which may result in the elimination or contracting out of the jobs of members of the plan.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 simply make reference to the fact that the Auditor General of Canada should be the primary auditor of the public sector pension investment board to protect the interests of the retirees and those who will be retirees sometime in the future. I certainly stand in full support of those valuable recommendations.

I would like to make some general comments on Bill C-78 and to say that this is a closely watched debate. I know that because I have heard from many constituents in Saskatchewan who have spoken to me about this issue. Some have met with me as recently as last week in the riding to talk about their concerns. I know the government knows it is a closely watched debate. That is why it is ramming this through as fast as it possibly can. That is why it has introduced closure. The government has refused to hold cross-country hearings because it does not want the people to come forward to vent their spleen and anger at what is happening with Bill C-78.

Simply put, the approach of the government is to commandeer $30.1 billion and to appropriate that unto itself. There is no hint that it is prepared to share this surplus with the retirees or the current public sector workers in any way, shape or form. There are basically three groups which have or are contributing to the plan: the government, the pensioners who have contributed over the years, and the current employees who are contributing. As I said, the surplus stands in excess of $30 billion.

This affects public service superannuation members, folks who were employed by the Canadian forces as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

When we debated this at second reading a week or so ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board indicated to us that one of the reasons the government was commandeering the $30 billion was because the government has to guarantee any deficit and it has to ensure that the pensions are paid out. The parliamentary secretary indicated that over the years the government has paid out some $13 billion.

If we can just picture this, the government has paid out $13 billion according to its figures, but it will grab $30 billion. Where in the world is the equity in that proposition? It has refused to share this with the other two groups that have contributed over the years. It is the old adage, “What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine as well”.

We have seen this movie. The member for Dewdney—Alouette was talking about movies. There was another pornographic film around and that was on the $26 billion grab that the government made on the employment insurance fund a few years ago where there was absolutely no money and even less justification from the government. It put none of that money in. It was all employers' or employees' money, but somehow it appropriated that unto itself as well.

When the government takes the $30 billion and runs with it, who is left in the lurch? The people who are primarily left in the lurch are women. The average pension, not the bottom end, for women in the public service is $9,600 per year. Again, that is not the low end. That is the average received by these folks who have worked over the years earning low wages, having their salaries frozen, not qualifying for equal pay for work of equal value or anything of that sort.

That is why the government wants to close this debate down as quickly as it can because it knows how high the feelings are running out in the country on this issue. That is why it chose to stonewall any suggestion from the member for Winnipeg Centre, or others in our caucus or on this side of the House, that there be cross-country hearings.

Once upon a time the Liberals, when they sat on this side of the House, saw this issue much differently than they see it today. At that time, in the 1991-92 period, they proposed that any surpluses in pension plans should be resolved by binding arbitration. That was then and this is now. Then they were sitting to the left of the Speaker and now they are sitting to the right of the Speaker and they have a whole different approach to this issue.

I submit that what is happening is not only a shame, it is also a sham. Obviously, with its majority the government will get its way on this issue today, but I predict that there will be a day of reckoning because the government has not heard the last from the retirees on this issue. I suggest that it will rue the day when it absconded with $30.1 billion.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-78, the public service pension plan raid. At least that is what I would suggest the title should be.

As we have heard from many of the people who have spoken on this bill, what it all boils down to is the government getting its sticky fingers on $30 billion of private pension funds.

The money that the government insists on putting its sticky fingers on is being taken from the Canadian people who paid into this fund. Let us look at who it is taking this money from. It is taking $14.9 billion from the public service plan.

It was only weeks ago that we had to stand in the House all night to debate, while the government's only solution was to force these men and women across Canada back to work. That was absolutely unacceptable. Now, to add insult to injury, it is helping itself to the pension plan fund that rightly belongs to PSAC. That is absolutely wrong.

The government is taking $2.4 billion from the RCMP members' plan. It is ironic that I attended a community policing forum last week in my riding. I spoke to an RCMP member as well as the mayor of the town of Sidney, Don Amos. They are very frustrated with what is going. In that city there is a fairly large detachment of RCMP officers. As we know, in British Columbia we have 400 vacancies that are yet to be filled because there are no officers to fill them. The government will not allocate the funds to train people. There are four vacant positions in Sidney, the community in which I live. I am told by the mayor that those four positions are 100% funded by the municipality, yet there is nobody to fill them. They go unfilled.

I was told by one of the other police officers that they have been advised that they should be using all the gas coupons they have received to fill up their police cars. Morale is very low. What is the government going to do to add insult to injury? It is going to raid their money. That is absolutely unacceptable.

It is outrageous that the government sees this $30 billion surplus as its money. Thirty per cent of the pension plan fund is funded by the members. It is funded by the employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It is their money and the government is confiscating it. That is unacceptable.

When the government does things like this it is clearly embarrassed about it. It is not putting up speakers. The last speakers on this bill have been my colleague from the NDP and another Reform member. The Progressive Conservatives and the Bloc are also speaking on this bill. Why? Because the government is embarrassed. We fully understand that it will most likely bring in time allocation or closure on this bill because it is embarrassed.

I cannot believe that we are fighting to get basic, core funding for a national institution, one of which we are very proud from coast to coast, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The government treats those people like the musical ride and nothing more. It makes them go around in circles and they do not get anything out. That is unacceptable. What is the government doing now? It is confiscating money from a fund which those members paid into.

It is the same thing with the PSAC members who went on strike for a long time. The government's only solution to that was to come down with a big hammer and force them back to work. These are the facts. They are indisputable. They are there. Why is the government so silent? Because it is absolutely embarrassed about it.

There is a very simple solution to this. The Reform Party has put forward numerous amendments. We will watch when they come up for debate. My colleague from Alberta put forward these amendments. There are a number of them. At the end of the day what we need is a pension investment board. Let us remove it from the government and politics and have it at arm's length from the government. It should be made up of experts in the field, in the private sector, who can manage these pension funds so the Liberals cannot get their sticky fingers on them and raid them. Then the Liberals will stand and say that they balanced the budget.

Who has balanced the budget? The union members. The RCMP members. Who else is the government robbing? It is robbing the Canadian forces plan of $12.9 billion. These are the men and women who are in active combat in Kosovo, putting their lives on the line in very scary situations. While they are on the other side of the world fighting for humanity, what is their government doing behind their backs? It is stealing their pension money. That is unacceptable. I will retract that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, I think the hon. member knows he is overstepping the bounds with language of that sort and I invite him to stay within the rules.