Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a turn at speaking to 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 and other related acts.
I am all the more pleased because I will be speaking as well as the labour critic, a role which has led me in recent weeks to examine the sometimes sorry lot of public servants.
In fact, a few weeks ago we saw once again that the state as employer gave precedence to its power as a legislator over its power as a negotiator. And it is holding the line on that. Now we have another bill that is completely in the government's favour.
Federal public servants will have to remember the President of Treasury Board, now arriving, as the member for Hull-Aylmer, when it comes time for the next elections and the next referendum. Those on the other side of the floor will have to learn to pass legislation, not just in the supposedly collective interest, but also perhaps in a greater spirit of generosity than what is motivating the government at present.
Thousands of people and billions of dollars are involved here. Overall, there are some 275,000 contributors to the pension fund. We are talking about 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses, people who have lived with public servants.
We are talking about a surplus of $30 billion that has accumulated since the fund was first established in 1924. Between 1924 and 1998, a period of 74 years, some $75 billion have been accumulated in surpluses, with the particular surplus we are looking at being $30 billion. Believe it or not, $14.9 billion of this come from the public service superannuation fund per se, $2.4 billion from the RCMP superannuation fund, and almost $13 billion from the Canadian forces superannuation fund.
This $30 billion surplus directly affects government employees. Just as the federal government decided to use the money in the EI fund to bring down the deficit, to the detriment of this country's unemployed workers, now it has decided to lower the national debt, this time dipping into the accumulated money in its employees' pension funds.
It is a bit disconcerting from a public morale point of view to see a body as important to the Canadian economy as the federal government acting in this manner, given the moral authority it carries. It is disconcerting to say the least.
In addition, this belies all the government's supposed attempts at proceeding with caution. On the face of it, the government has made an effort. In 1996, it established the Public Service Superannuation Act Advisory Committee.
Surprisingly, the President of the Treasury Board was quite positive at the time in his remarks, praising the efforts of the workers, the union representatives and the government. He said they had made a generous effort, that they were perceptive and that he planned to implement many of the recommendations. He said the work had been productive.
I think he did not anticipate the authority of the Minister of Finance, who saw things quite differently than he did. The Minister of Finance decided that it would go instead into the consolidated fund to pay off the debt.
In this body known as the federal government, there is no real collaboration, unlike Quebec, in brackets, between unionized workers, government employees and the government as such. The government decides arbitrarily, unilaterally, in the hopes the unions will go along.
We can also say it is in contradiction with the advisory committee I spoke of earlier. It followed none of the recommendations the committee made.
And yet, it would be so simple if the government complied with the law that applies generally to the funds in the federal government pension plan. If it applied the regulations of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the problems and disputes we are facing today would not exist.
This is where the government is acting once again unilaterally and arbitrarily. This legislation currently applies to all jobs covered by federal regulations, except a job for Her Majesty in Right of Canada.
So it is all very well for others, but it is not a good thing when one works directly for the public service of Canada, because the government as employer prefers to issue its own rules to its own advantage.
Under the regulations, an actuarial gain must first be used to reduce an outstanding debt or a solvency deficit. This is what the regulations provide.
Also, the regulations state that the balance must be used to increase benefits or to reduce the employer's contributions related to the normal costs of the plan, or must be left in the plan. If I understand correctly, this applies to any corporation under federal jurisdiction, like Canadian Pacific or Sun Life for example. Any corporation under federal jurisdiction must abide by the rules set out by the federal government, even though it does not abide by these rules itself.
The regulations also provide that all or part of the surplus can be reimbursed if the surplus is in excess of twice the employer's contributions or 25% of the plan's liabilities, if the administrator has notified plan participants, in writing, of his or her intention to withdraw part of the surplus and of their right to submit to the superintendent, in writing, their comments on the withdrawal and if the superintendent has approved the reimbursement.
Therefore, if we applied these rules, we would not have the problems we have today.
What we propose, among other things, is that employees be present at the table, that they be an integral part of the committee instead of being represented by a person who is appointed by the President of the Treasury Board. Right now, out of 12 committee members, employees and unions will be represented by one person appointed by the President of the Treasury Board. This situation is not normal; it will breed challenges and condemnation.
In compliance with the wishes of employees and pensioners, we want a management board to be set up with a mandate to design the pension plan, to provide for its financing, to manage any surplus or deficit, to manage the plan and to ensure adequate financing for the payment of benefits.
This is simple, but fair. This is all the opposition is asking for and all the public servants are asking for.