Debates of May 13th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, errare humanum est, persevere diabolicum, said the Romans. To err is human, but to persist is diabolical. One could not describe any better the bill before us.

After appropriating the employment insurance fund surplus, the government now wants to get its hands on the accumulated surplus in the public sector pension plans. We have to face the facts. Relying on his docile majority, the Prime Minister has decided to grab everything within his reach and put it in his large pocket, whether it belongs to him or not.

It would not be so bad if this misappropriated money were to be used for legitimate purposes. But can we say the federal government's obvious intention to use this money to build a slush fund for the next election is a legitimate purpose? It wants to be able to tell people how good and how generous it is just before they cast their vote.

Of course, the federal government also wants to use this money to continue to fund its intrusion in provincial jurisdictions. That is certainly as bold, shameless and cynical as can be.

What scares me about this scheme is that people did nothing else but shrug in disgust and resignation. All those scandals in Ottawa have made them numb. They are no longer reacting.

This kind of passivity is dangerous because it encourages the government to continue with its actions. What is the use of democracy if the people, theoretically sovereign, give up their sovereignty, thereby allowing their leaders to act as dictators with impunity?

Why would we be surprised at this lack of public reaction, when, higher up, the provincial leaders, except Quebec's, provided a lamentable example? It is time to recall the history of the social union.

On February 4, at 24 Sussex Drive, nine premiers, abdicating their birthright to their area of jurisdiction in exchange for a dish of budget largesse lentils, agreed to the massive intrusion by Ottawa in their constitutional jurisdiction.

The most pressing duty of the members of the Bloc Quebecois is to awaken the indignation of the electorate. Holy indignation, the salutary ability to react, to rise up, to cry out loud and long in the media and, if necessary, in the street, our disgust, our indignation, our satiation at this insulting scorn for the most elementary government ethics.

When parliamentary democracy is in crisis, elected representatives have no other choice but to advise their electors.

But, it is an ill wind that blows no good. By settling deeper and deeper into ignominy, this government will, I hope at least, one day soon convince all Quebeckers that, to escape this foul mudhole that Canadian politics has become under it, sovereignty is the only way.

I would now like to introduce a motion. I began my speech by recalling the old proverb that to err is human, to persist in error is diabolical. My colleagues opposite have twice rejected a motion asking them to withdraw from this debate, since they are the ones that imposed closure.

In the hope that, having made a mistake they will not want to persist in their error diabolically, I request the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That all government members, since the government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will first make a comment with regard to the second attempt in essence to muzzle members of parliament simply because they represent the government side. That kind of thinking is a little dangerous. The reality is if we were not to speak on this issue, as has been requested, we would obviously hear one side of the issue and unfortunately we would hear the side that is not based on reality.

[An hon. member]

You haven't been listening.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I have been listening.

It is nothing more than fearmongering and trying to get people upset. I want to give an example.

I received an e-mail from Mr. Greg Jones, a constituent of mine. Mr. Jones wrote “I am a retired police officer and if passage of this bill will negatively impact upon my pension plan or pension plan surplus, do not allow the bill to pass”.

He sent along a copy of an ad that has been placed in one of the Toronto newspapers by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and a number of other union organizations. Who knows, there might have been some financial contribution from some party in this place, I say to the members of the New Democratic Party. The ad says “It is about the heist of the hard-earned dollars set aside by workers for their retirement benefits”.

The government is guaranteeing their retirement benefits in this plan. The government is putting the pension for the public service employees into a state where exactly the opposite of what is being said in the advertisement is the case. The pension plan is not being threatened in any way whatsoever.

The ad goes on to say that experts—and of course they do not say who they are; they might be certain opposition critics—warn that this legislation could set a dangerous precedent and encourage private employers to do the same thing. What is not pointed out is that any private sector pension plan must conform to the rules of the Income Tax Act. One of the rules says that the surplus buildup can be no greater than 10% and once it reaches 10% it must be dealt with in some way.

It makes sense to bring what is a very generous and well earned—I would not take anything away from the public service employees—pension plan into compliance with the Income Tax Act. It is a secure pension plan backed by what could obviously be one of the most secure institutions in our land, the Government of Canada. It is a very secure bill. In reality it does not conform to the rules under the Income Tax Act. This bill will allow the cabinet, the governor in council the flexibility to ensure that it does conform.

I want to say to Mr. Jones and all the retirees out there, do not be misled by the rhetoric in this place or by advertisements that tell a little bit of the story. This is not an attack or a grab in any way on the security of the pension plan that Mr. Jones and his other retired colleagues enjoy.

If government members were not allowed to put facts like that on the table, if we were to acquiesce to the members opposite and simply sit here and say nothing, then the kind of information that is being perpetrated in this ad in a close to fraudulent manner would simply be added to. People would get upset and rightfully so if they really thought that the government was in some way attacking their pension plan.

We are dealing with amendments in Group No. 3. The pension plan is secured and primarily funded by the taxpayer. Yes, the workers make a contribution, but the vast majority of the contributions made into this pension plan are made by the taxpayer, not by the worker. Of course I do not see that in the ad and I do not hear it in speeches by the opposition members.

The contribution rate to the pension plan is roughly 70:30 with 70% being contributed by the government, which is the taxpayer. In fact, if we were to extrapolate the existing pension plan over the next one and a half years, that contribution rate would change to 80:20 unless we did something about it. Does it seem to make sense that when an employer is contributing between 70% and 80% of the money that secures the pension plan and the employee is contributing 20% to 30%, that somehow that equates to an equal contribution?

That is the argument members of the NDP would put forward, that this is the money of the workers and somehow it would be increased wages if it was not put forward in a pension contribution. They know that is not true. They know that these contributions were fought and won at the bargaining table. I do not have a problem with that.

I would say that if we are to allow the curve to continue to where the employer will be making an even more inordinate percentage of the contribution toward these plans, then the taxpayers would have a right to ask us, as a government, why we are doing that.

We cannot compare this in any way whatsoever to a private sector pension where the contribution rates are much more likely to be on a 50:50 basis rather than this large discrepancy. To compare this and to get people upset in thinking that this is the thin edge of the wedge and all the private sector companies that provide pension plans for their workers are going to threaten the security of the pension plan is fearmongering. It is misleading. It is putting out information that is not based on fact or truth. It is a serious bit of unfair propaganda being put before the retired people.

That is probably one of the most distasteful things about this. The opposition and some of the unions, the leadership not the rank and file, are putting out information that is getting people worried. Those people are relying on their pensions. Maybe they are a little bit worried about their economic situation. They have had to go through an enormous change. They are no longer earning a full salary and are now living on a pension. It is a time of life when they should be able to feel some comfort in my view. They should not feel that they are under siege.

For individuals here or in the labour movement to get people upset in some attempt to mobilize what we would fondly refer to as grey power is a misuse of the political process. It is an unfair tactic that they are using in getting these folks upset.

My point is it is vitally important that members on this side speak. I have no problem and would never suggest that members opposite should not partake in the democratic process in this place. When there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, whether or not there is time allocation, we all have a responsibility. I represent retired federal workers. I have a responsibility to tell them how I see this bill, to tell them why I support this bill, and not to simply sit here and allow those folks to mislead.

One of the amendments by the hon. member for St. Albert deals with the issue of requiring contribution rates to be in an act of parliament. This is a move that the opposition, primarily the Reform Party, is attempting to bring in to this place so that every bit of regulation, every bit of dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's, must be a full-fledged debate in parliament.

We all know that the process calls for the big picture. The legislation is to be debated, passed and enacted by parliament and the regulations are to be handled by the staff of the Government of Canada. We know that and we it is appropriate. To do it the way the hon. member is suggesting would create a gridlock. It would make it impossible to make the changes that we think are vital to secure the future of the pension plan for all public sector employees.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member we just heard from if a member of the ruling Liberal Party, and I emphasize the word ruling. It underlines how out of touch these people are. Here is a dispute and their solution is, “Oh, that is easy. We will solve it. We will just take it all”. That is so one-sided, so lopsided.

With respect to the motions brought by our Bloc colleagues saying that those who stood up and voted to limit debate should forgo their right to debate, make a lot of sense. The Liberals use their majority to limit debate and then they use up the time for those of us who want to talk about these things and try to represent some common sense and fairness here.

I attribute that desire to all members on this side, the united alternative on this side. We are the alternative to that arrogant controlling government that says “Unless we control it and do it our way, it cannot possibly be right”. That is a terrible false assumption. It cannot be true.

I want to talk a bit about the amendments which are proposed in this group because they have to do with the actuarial evaluation. What the Liberal government is missing entirely is the unfairness of what it is doing. The Liberals get up, they crow and puff up their chests like colourful peacocks trying to attract mates and they say that they just cannot do anything wrong, that they are guaranteeing these pensions so the people have no complaint. That may be true. However, they fail to recognize what a surplus means. It means that the amount of money paid in over the last 10, 15, 20, 40 or however many years since a person has been an employee was too high. Moneys are put in by the employer, which is the taxpayer, and the employee, the person in the plan. In other words, they have taken more money from them than they should have to sustain the plan. That is totally obvious. If it were not the case, there would not be a surplus. To whom does that money belong?

We have all of these different questions being asked. Some say 20%, some say 30%. I suppose what we should do is think about things like the MP pension plan to which the taxpayer contributes about 80%. The employees are the members of parliament and the senators. When given the opportunity in the last parliament, all but one Reformer opted out of the plan because we said that it was just not right. This bill also addresses the plan for members of parliament.

I do not have the numbers at my fingertips and I suppose that I should if I am going to talk about this. However, if we look at all of the money in this so-called fund, my conjecture is that the MP pension plan has already taken the total sum down. Ordinary civil servants and other members of the so-called ordinary working class have paid in more than they should have to compensate for the members of parliament who are in this plan. I am not sure that it is all in the same fund and whether it is accounted for that way, so I need to be a little careful, but certainly in terms of the taxpayers' interests in the matter that would be the case.

We have a situation where we need to answer, before we get into any of this, a fundamental question. Who should pay for the livelihood of a person who has gone into retirement? That is the fundamental question which has never been answered.

Over the years we have had different plans. I remember when I was a little itty-bitty kid. That was a long time ago. Members will not believe it but I turned 60 this week, so when I say “when I was a little itty-bitty kid”, it was a long time ago. I remember my grandfather skimping and saving to put money into a retirement fund. He said: “Mom and I will not always have the ability to work and earn money, so we had better put some away so we can look after ourselves”.

It is ironic that when he finally did retire the Liberal government at the time brought in a pension plan which had some rules. It turned out that my grandfather was ineligible because he had made the mistake of not spending his own money. He had saved too much. As a result, he was not eligible for the supplemental benefits the government was offering. His looking after himself turned out to be a disadvantage. He would have been better off to have spent more money on his family, on himself and his wife.

That was a case where a person put money away. Many Canadians have a mixture. Probably all of us in this place have RRSPs, in addition to a pension plan in which we participate. I am one of those who at this stage has only an RRSP, but I do anticipate getting a small pension from the place where I worked when I finally retire. I am not getting that pension now, even though I would be eligible for it, but sometime in the future when my job here is done, 20 or 30 years from now, I expect to get some money from that. It represents money that I put in, but also money that my employer put in. I hope that money will be there, according to the contract.

The Liberals regularly say that the people who are in the plan will get their money. That is not the question. Of course they will get their money, but the Liberals like to talk about it because it totally deflects from the question of the surplus. The surplus exists because the people have paid too much.

I gave a speech a long time ago on a bill that came from the Senate which had to do with winding down pension plans and dealing with surpluses in pension plans in the private sector. It was a bill in which even our Minister of Finance had a fiduciary interest. Indirectly he has divested himself of these interests, temporarily, while he is a cabinet minister. I believe he must have done that. However, in the end that legislation will affect him because the shares in the company continue to grow and there was a surplus of over $110 million in the pension fund of his own company.

We were forced in this place to pass legislation that affected him, which said that an agreement would have to be reached between the two parties that paid into the fund, the employer and the employees. Quite clearly that is not bad legislation because if the employer said it wanted 100% of it the employees and the retirees would not agree and it would not happen. The employer would not get 100%. If the employees said that they wanted 100%, the employer would say no and there would be no agreement.

Clearly they would move to the middle. We, on the assumption that they would reach a deal somewhere around 50:50, said that the Minister of Finance had the potential of gaining $50 million from that legislation. We raised a little stink about it. We said that the Minister of Finance should not have sponsored the legislation in the House since he could potentially benefit from it.

That is no different from the issue we have here. We are talking about pension money that is set aside to pay the pensions of civil servants, people in the armed forces and the RCMP. I will accept from government members that people will get the pension they are anticipating because it is a defined benefit. Sure, they will get it, but what about the fact that both the taxpayers, the government as the employer, and the employees have paid too much into it and we have this $30 billion?

I outright reject the government's move to say that is all right, it will just take all of it. All of the money does not belong to it. It is not all taxpayer money. I concede that some of it is. The proportion has to be worked out. That can be done by actuaries very accurately.

Why do we not do that? Why do we not tell these people that we will give them back funds, either through enhanced benefits, reduced premiums or contributions? We will compensate contributors by the amount they have overpaid, and the part the taxpayers have given up. Sure, take that back and apply it to something that the taxpayers will benefit from. Let us be fair. That is what is missing.

Of course the government has invoked time allocation because, as any bank robber would say, “I ain't going to stick around until I get caught”.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before going into Bill C-78, I would like to say that I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the behaviour of my colleagues across the way who, just hours ago, proposed a time allocation motion, a highly undemocratic gesture, moreover. That revolts me, to start with.

It revolts me also to see that these people are capable of finding positive aspects to the dirty deal they are now handing to government pensioners.

This government deliberately attacked the unemployed a few years ago. It misappropriated the funds in the employment insurance fund, the surplus that had come from the unemployed and from employers, with not one cent coming from the federal government. Using all kinds of tactics, however, the Minister of Finance managed to get his hands on $25 billion.

This Minister of Finance is so money-mad that he has now found a new source of supply. This time he is going after his own employees, those who helped keep the government running properly, those who have helped ensure the country's security—I refer to the RCMP—and those who made a contribution within the Canadian forces.

These three pension funds total $30 billion, which the government wants to get its hands on, possibly for the purpose of again giving Liberal ministers a chance to create programs that will offer an opportunity for flag-waving and will, more importantly, stir up trouble with the provinces. That is their specialty.

They are very honest. In fact, they said very clearly in the September 1997 throne speech that they were increasingly aware of the fact that they needed money. Why? The Liberal ministers are certainly concocting other programs to show how good this government is and how sensitive it is to the current disaster, with the unemployed, young people without work and people who do not have access to adequate health care services because of the cuts in funding.

With the $30 billion, the federal Liberals are preparing, for September or October, another marketing blitz and propaganda campaign to demonstrate how good a government they are, but once again, opposition members, particularly members of the Bloc Quebecois, are being vigilant. We know what they are up to.

More and more, the government is shirking its responsibilities. Not too long ago, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency was established, and it will allow the Minister of National Revenue to shirk his responsibilities. Questions will be asked of the minister responsible for this agency in the House, and I already know what the answer will be “I will investigate. I will ask the agency. I cannot interfere, because it is an independent agency”.

This is false. It is not an independent agency.The people who were chosen, as all those who will be appointed to the new public sector pension investment board, are good Liberals. I will give some very important criteria that will be used by the Liberal government to create what we call a possibly objective board of directors.

First criterion: they will check to see if these people are Liberal members with a paid up membership. Second criterion: they will check to see if they are good friends of the Prime Minister. Third criterion: they will look at their financial contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada. And, above all, they will check to see if these people are prepared to commit, unconditionally, to follow the Prime Minister's orders.

I am convinced that these are the four criteria that the government will use to appoint the board of directors of the new public sector pension investment board.

When we ask questions to the ministers opposite about this investment board if, unfortunately, it is established, they will hide behind the fact that it is an independent body. But this board will not be independent.

Now, all agencies are controlled by the Privy Council. This is where the real power lies. It is not in this House. The power is with the Privy Council, with the Prime Minister of Canada, the special advisers, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board. These people do all sorts of things, at the expense of the poor in society.

I find it totally unacceptable to go after one's own employees, to hit people who have been working hard for 20 or 30 years. Today, the government will reward these people by taking unilateral action, by taking $30 billion directly from them.

The government is trying to tell us that this is an honest proposal. I have a lot of trouble with this word. Yesterday I looked in the Larousse dictionary for synonyms that come close to what we cannot say, but I was not successful. It is a bit like a swindle. With this bill, the government is trying to show that it is being good to its employees. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to go back to the very democratic incident of this morning. This bill affects many people, some of them retired. We have many comments to make, but this government has become an expert at imposing time allocation. When we want to speak the truth, we are gagged and forced to speed up the process. Why? Because the government is going to need money again in the fall because there is no longer a surplus in the EI fund. It has cleaned out the fund, and new money will be needed, this time for other partisan programs and propaganda.

I have travelled extensively, and I have seen the image that Canada projects, particularly at agricultural shows. All the countries focused on their products. Canada's image in Paris especially was something else. There were so many Canadian flags that it was hard to see the products. All the other countries knew that what matters is the products and the market. When Canada takes part in an event, the dominant image is maple leaves. The names of vendor companies or organizations appear on the leaves.

One of the visitors asked me “Is this the Canadian pavilion?” I said no, it is just exhibitors who happen to be together inside the Canadian pavilion. Members can imagine the kind of image we are projecting on the international level. We are moving towards globalization and we should be promoting our products and all the provinces, and what do we see, when we get out of Ottawa? The maple leaf propaganda of the Liberals.

At the beginning of my remarks, I expressed some reservations about the actions of my friends opposite. To conclude, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That all government members, since the government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 16 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 39 and 47.

The next question is on Motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.