Mr. Speaker, basically the motions in Group No. 3 relate to the concept of good governance. This large section of Bill C-78 deals with the privatization of the civil service pension plan, out of which the government will take $30 billion. We say that it has no right to that money, but it seems that the government is going to ram this bill through parliament so it can get the cash. That will still leave $100 billion in the plan.

Over the next number of years the money will be converted from where it now sits, which is in government debt. The civil service pension plan carries approximately 25% of the government debt of $579.3 billion. This money will be invested in the private sector through private capital markets on the Toronto stock exchange, as well as around the world if the government continues to relax foreign content rules.

When we have a plan of that magnitude one of the fundamental things we must put in place is the concept of good governance; rules and requirements to ensure that the fund is safe and secure.

Several witnesses appeared before the committee from the capital markets and the equity markets, professional people of great repute. They told us about good governance and how to manage this money to get a reasonable return on behalf of the investor without rolling the dice and perhaps losing the lot.

The concept of good governance ensures that the proper checks and balances are in place so that no one can run away and bet the bank.

I raise the issue of the pension fund in Orange County, California, which was a very large pension fund of about $9 billion, only one-tenth the size of this plan. One manager of the fund thought he was so smart that he could play the futures market, he could play hedge funds, he could make a great career for himself by getting a phenomenal rate of return on the investment. One day he woke up and found he had bet the wrong way and had broken the bank. He had pushed the whole pension plan straight into bankruptcy because he had the authority to make investment decisions without the proper checks and balances and supervision to ensure that did not happen.

I think of Barings Bank, one of the great venerable banks of London, England. It had been around for the better part of 200 years, perhaps longer. It had been around a long time by ensuring good governance, respectability, and not assuming too much risk as the order of the day. Two hundred years is a good long time to thrive, prosper and to continue to do business. That bank expanded around the world. We remember the rogue dealer in Singapore who single-handedly destroyed the institution in a matter of weeks because he bet the wrong way and senior management, the auditors, the board of directors and the shareholders were not supervising him closely enough. He broke the bank all by himself through lack of good governance.

Last year in New York there was a capital hedge fund which just about upset the entire capital markets of the free world because it found it had bet the wrong way on Italian bonds versus Russian bonds and so on, trying to grab that extra one-tenth of 1% or maybe one-hundredth of 1%, which would be big bucks when dealing with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. They bet the wrong way and it just about broke them.

I want to ensure that this plan has good governance and the witnesses before the committee said it is absolutely imperative that we have good governance.

I recall one witness who said that his company had a large client. They were handling a very significant amount of cash and investments on behalf of this large client and had been given almost unfettered rein and authority to invest any way they wanted on behalf of the client. He felt that good governance was so important that he imposed upon himself a semi-annual audit; not an annual audit, a semi-annual audit; not just of the funds under his administration, but of the procedures, the processes, the checks and balances that he had in place to ensure that decisions were sound, reasonable, rational and could be defended.

We are putting in place a board of managers which will be nominated by various people. I suggested that the auditor general be the auditor for the special audits that this bill requires once every six years; not every six months as the witness before the committee imposed upon himself, but once every six years. A lot of money could be lost in six years. Once every six years there is to be a special audit; not just a financial audit, but an audit of procedures. Who better in this country has the resources than the Auditor General of Canada who does value-for-money audits of large government departments and so on? Who better than he to do the intense analyses of procedures, processes, checks and balances to ensure that this fund has the integrity to handle $100 billion? What did the government say? “We do not want to hear about motions that introduce better governance”.

When I said “Let us take some time to talk about governance and understand what kind of processes have been built in”, the government was not interested. It said “Let us move on. Let us vote this through. It is a done deal. Next clause, please”.

A great deal of supervision will be required for $100 billion of taxpayers' money and civil service employees' money which will be invested in capital markets. I have very serious concerns about whether we will have the proper governance procedures in place. What can I say? One day we may wake up and, like the Barings Bank or the Orange County pension fund, find out it is gone.

Then we will ask: What happened? Who is to blame? The government will point its finger at some manager, the board of directors, the auditor or the internal accountant and say “You are to blame” and he will lose his job. I submit that the blame lies here if that ever happens because we were not prepared to examine the governance issues and put them in place to guarantee that we have the best possible governance for one of the largest pension funds in North America. We have abdicated our responsibility.

I was speaking a few minutes ago on the issue of morality and now I am talking about financial accountability. The government is not prepared to put the processes and the rules in place to do the best it can with money which rightfully belongs to the people. What can I say?

I would like to be able to debate this all day. I would like to be able to talk to the auditor general and the investment community, ask them what we should be doing and incorporate that into the bill, but the government will not give us that opportunity.

Division No. 425Government Orders

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, here I am back today, once again, with the famous Bill C-78.

This is a huge bill, with over 200 pages, which will affect hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees in the public service. I have the bill here. It is clearly a huge document.

The government of the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice is imposing closure—four hours to deal with such a huge bill—true to the Liberals' democratic style.

This bill will allow the President of the Treasury Board and member for Hull—Aylmer to appropriate the surplus in the pension fund of 275,000 employees, just as this very same government has taken the $21 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund by digging into the pockets of those with the least, those working on hourly wage, by making it harder to obtain EI and by artificially creating revenues because contributions are too high compared to the benefits the plan pays out. So, surpluses were created, and the finance minister, the ships minister, took $21 billion.

Today, the President of the Treasury Board is preparing to take $14.9 billion from the public service pension fund, $2.4 billion from the employees of the RCMP and $12.9 billion from the pensions of the Canadian armed forces, our military. This adds up to $30.2 billion. Bill C-78, which will probably be passed this afternoon, will allow the President of the Treasury Board to take $30.2 billion.

This affects 275,000 contributors. Of course, those who contributed in the past are now benefiting from the plan. There are 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses receiving benefits. These 212,000 people receive monthly payments totalling $3.1 billion annually, while 275,000 contributors pay $1.8 billion into the plan. The difference between what the plan takes in and what it pays out is $1.3 billion annually.

But, if the present surplus of $30.2 billion were well managed, it would bring in more than what the government pays out in monthly benefits. Public service, armed forces and RCMP employees could be given a premium holiday lasting a number of years.

I agree that this would not be a smart thing to do. But, and I am being perfectly honest here, I do not trust the government. I have seen how it treated the hourly workers of this country in its reform. I have seen how it treated the BC mine workers, who were laid off on November 1, 1997. Its track record is not good.

What is worse, this sends a clear message to the private sector that it can follow the lead of the government and the President of the Treasury Board and illegally help itself to the surpluses in employee funds. This is the message this government is sending the private sector.

This is precisely what happened to former BC mine workers, when their employer helped itself to part of the money in their pension fund, leaving some of them with a very small pension after 30 or 35 years of work. This is the sort of government we have.

In a 1998 press release, Treasury Board stated and I quote: “The President agreed with a number of the recommendations of the special advisory committee... [which] was the result of four years of dedicated work by union representatives, pensioners and government employees”.

Here we have a minister, who stated in February 1998 that he agreed with a number of the recommendations of an advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act established by the government, not even recognizing the negotiations suggested in its report.

The President of Treasury Board is trampling roughshod over these recommendations and doing what he pleases. Gangway, he is coming through. And he will get his hands on a surplus to which he is not entitled.

At the present time, there are no provisions for the over $30 billion that is excess to expenditures, and Bill C-78 enables the government to get its hands on a surplus the ownership of which, while not clearly defined, is morally the property of employees and ex-employees, i.e. pensioners.

It is going to get its hands on the dough, and then what it is going to do with it? It will probably argue that it invested it to reduce our collective debt. Once again, a small group of people will be footing the bill for all Canadians, just like the hourly-paid workers of this country, who make excessive contributions to employment insurance and receive very little in the way of benefits, while the employment insurance fund has generated a surplus in excess of $21 billion over four years. The government stole this surplus to reduce the collective debt and create budget surpluses for the minister of ships, thus allowing Ottawa to spend money in provincial jurisdictions.

The government did the same thing with the millennium scholarship program and a $2.2 billion budget. It also showed disrespect for Quebec by giving the four Atlantic provinces close to $1 billion in compensation for collecting the GST, while Quebec, which has been collecting the GST since 1991 under an agreement signed by Robert Bourassa and Prime Minister Mulroney, did not get one single dollar. This is what we call a double standard.

Under Bill C-78, contributions would be deposited in retirement funds and then transferred to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Who will manage the board? The appointment process will be very similar to that used for the Senate. The appointees, who will be responsible for managing and administering this fund, will be friends of the government.

The President of the Treasury Board will establish an advisory committee of eight persons. He will, of course, appoint eight of his friends, who will make a list of candidates—again chosen among the minister's friends—from which the board's 12 directors will be selected.

This is how the Prime Minister appoints his friends to the Senate and to the superior court. The former president of the Liberal Party of Canada was just rewarded by being appointed to the bench in my riding.

The Prime Minister appointed to the Senate the opponent of the Bloc Quebecois leader in the last general election, Liberal candidate Aurélien Gill, for having been defeated by my colleague. He was rewarded for his sacrifice by being appointed to the Senate until the age of 75.

The President of the Treasury Board will be no better than the Prime Minister. He too will appoint friends, who often are not qualified to administer a $30 billion surplus.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to join in the last dwindling minutes of the debate on Bill C-78.

As those in the House realize, in the last hour we have seen closure moved yet again. We are not going to have an opportunity to go into the bill in nearly the depth that it certainly warrants. This is getting to be a real pattern. We have heard speaker after speaker comment on the fact that it is getting to be far too easy for the government to use closure and time allocation. They used to be very rare occurrences, but they are being used more and more frequently. Every time it meets the Liberals' expedient needs they have no qualms whatsoever about doing this.

This whole bill had its origins in a failure of the government to be able to negotiate a settlement with the unions and with the bargaining agents who have control over the pension plans. Now it is failing to use the democratic process to achieve its means.

I have always been of the mind that if your ideas have merit, they should be able to stand up to fair and honest debate and you will win the arguments. If the ideas come from a point of view that has more merits than the other arguments, then what would you be afraid of? The only time you should run from a free and open debate is when you know there is not a great deal of substance on your side of the argument. Then you have to take actions which I consider to be cowardly and circumvent the democratic process.

We are dealing with the amendments in Group No. 3. We have spoken to Group Nos. 1 and 2. Group No. 3 gets into some of the minutiae and detail dealing with the governance of this new public sector pension investment fund. This in itself could take up months and months of debate because a lot of things have been left unresolved in the bill as it stands.

We are going to have a 12 person board governing hundreds of billions of dollars of investment being openly invested in the free market. We have not really scratched the surface as to what impact that is going to have on the financial community.

Where are we going to invest this money? What kind of brokerage fees are we going to pay? What are the brokerage fees on a $100 billion being invested and reinvested every day? I have heard estimates that it might be $500 million to $700 million a year in brokerage fees.

What firm are we going to use to convey these transactions? What is the risk or the possibility of conflict of interest if we are going to be wielding that kind of clout financially? If there are 12 people on this board who is to say they do not have some remote relationship with one investment firm or another? Do they sit on another board of directors as well as the public sector pension investment fund? The conflict of interest possibilities are enormous. We should have dealt with that at great length and very carefully before we jumped into this whole idea.

We will be voting in favour of Motion No. 16 which was put forward by the Reform Party. It deals with the fact that the minister under this bill has enormous powers moved into his camp, things that used to be resolved in the House of Commons. The minister can now arbitrarily make changes to the rates of contribution to the pension fund. This is something that the House of Commons used to do. It used to have to be tabled here and be debated here.

It is also a breach of trust. I do not think it is unparliamentary to say it is a breach of trust. There has been a longstanding pact between the bargaining agents for the public sector unions and the government that if they took pensions off the bargaining table at negotiating time, the trade-off would be that they would never ever unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of the plan without bringing it to the House and without debate, et cetera.

The Liberals said they would not do it. That hearkens back to the early 1960s and Walter Gordon, and maybe the current Prime Minister was part of that caucus. Those are the people who made the deal back then. There is a historical record with this labour pact that this would not happen.

Now they are instituting the very thing they promised they would never do. They are incorporating it into Bill C-78. The minister will unilaterally and arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of the public sector pension plan because it is given that that right will in fact be his under this bill. Motion No. 16 seeks to remedy this one flaw of the many flaws in Bill C-78.

We cannot talk about this bill without talking about the public sector in general. We all know this bill will take the $30 billion surplus and all future surpluses out of the public sector pension plans. I have said this before, but to deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and then to use it for something entirely different is at best a breach of trust. I could go further with the worst case but I will not say what it could be if I really took it to its logical conclusion.

What will the impact be on the public sector when it finally sinks in? In the fullness of time when seniors, pensioners and retirees have had a chance to look through Bill C-78, these 200 pages of verbiage, what will the effect be on the public sector and the people paying into the plan? It will be another dent in the morale of the public sector.

Productivity is the big buzzword these days. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Industry, all they want to talk about is the productivity in the workforce. I can tell the House something about productivity and morale in the public sector.

Public servants have had blow after blow after blow to their morale and I would argue to their productivity or their ability to function. It used to be that if people took a job in the public sector they would probably take less money than in the private sector, but they could feel good about a couple of things.

They had a pretty good idea that some job security was associated with it. They probably had some comfort there. That went out the window when the government started cutting, hacking and slashing the public sector. There were 50,000 employees out on the street with no job security anymore. That protective umbrella is a thing of the past. They did not have the job security but they were making an okay wage. Then there were six years of wage freezes. Six years without a wage increase and they fell way behind the private sector. If they started out on par, they fell way behind.

There are 50,000 fewer people to do the same amount of work. The work does not go away. They are working harder and their wages are frozen. They can barely function because the government has taken out that whole middle band of skilled people, but they can still take some comfort in the fact that they have a pretty good pension. That gets used against them at the bargaining table. The employer says, “Yes we are paying you less money, but you have this great pension”. Now for the unkindest cut of all, the government is going after that too.

What else is there to feel good about working in the public sector with all these things being chipped away bit by bit until now when morale has never been lower, when any kind of pact that might have existed in the post-war years between labour and management is gone? It is eradicated. The deal has been broken. It has been violated. I would argue that we are looking at real chronic long term problems in the public sector and this is one more example.

I want to come back to the idea of the motions in Group No. 3 of dealing with this massive fund, the public sector pension investment fund. That is a lot of power, $100 billion. Twelve individuals from all walks of life, ordinary Canadians will be the trustees of this enormous fund.

There will be no joint labour-management trusteeship as with most pension funds I have had any dealings with. Most employee benefit plans have some kind of joint labour-management trusteeship. Then at least the employees or the beneficiaries of the plan have some say in how these things are invested and directed. This bill calls for none of that and there is no opportunity for them to take part in the governance of the plan.

There are no stipulations about what kind of investments will be acceptable. We are arguing through some of our amendments that it should be an ethical investment fund at the very least. We do not need to take less money to have an ethical investment fund. Frankly the ethical investment plans in the private sector are doing as well or better than the conventional financial instruments.

We had a couple of stipulations. We wanted to make sure that no investments made by this fund would be involved in any environmental degradation. I think that is pretty safe. Most Canadians would not want their pension plan polluting Lake Ontario.

We do not want the pension plan investing in any industry that uses child labour or follows labour laws that are substandard or do not match Canadian standards. Most Canadians would agree with that. No Canadian has any appetite for the economic exploitation of children. Why do we not have an ethical plan that stipulates these things? What about tobacco? Do we want a pension fund that invests in tobacco and is pushing smoking on our kids? No.

The plan falls short in any stipulation of ethical investments. Many of the motions in Group No. 3 are very valuable and we look forward to voting on them later.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-78 before the House today and the changes it makes with respect to pensions and other matters. It is important to have this kind of debate so all Canadians can understand fully what we as a government are trying to accomplish in this all important area.

I want to talk a bit about the area of investment of funds and management of surpluses with respect to the bill. As we have heard repeatedly in the House, and I think it is worth repeating once again, as a government we are trying to improve the rates of return and reduce pension costs. That has been noted in a way which is very meaningful for everyone who will be impacted by the legislation.

In the past Canadian taxpayers have covered the deficits in the plans, but the legislation will now authorize the government to debit the existing surplus of $30 billion over a period of up to 15 years. I think that is in keeping with what the majority of Canadians want to see happen. It is important that we underscore that yet again today.

In addition, the independent board of directors will be authorized to manage future surpluses either by reducing contribution rates or by withdrawing amounts from the pension funds. Based on the board being put in place, it is important to note as well that it is certainly in keeping with overall government policy.

I want to talk about same sex survivor benefits. As members know, pension survivor benefits will be extended to same sex partners. Federal employees who have same sex partners should have access to the same pension entitlements and be subject to the same obligations as their colleagues.

It is important to note that there is no radical agenda at work here. The amendments do not redefine marriage, for example. Nor do they legalize same sex marriage. That is not what is at play here. It does not do much good to have members in the House indicate that this is the case. It is not and it is important that we speak on the record accordingly.

We are simply keeping federal pensions in line with court decisions and trends elsewhere in the public and private sectors. Provincial pension plans in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick have been similarly amended as have those offered by companies such as Sears, Dow Chemical, Shell, Levi Strauss and others.

The courts are not setting the agenda. That too is important to understand. We believe it is for the courts to make rulings and for the government to make policy. This is appropriate legislative action then to eliminate a provision which has been identified as discriminatory by the courts. It has been estimated that the amendment will see an increase of less than 2% in the number of persons entitled to survivor benefits under the plans. The cost has been estimated at approximately $5 million per year.

I also recap, based on retirement and other benefits, that the retirement benefits will be calculated on the average salary during the best consecutive five years rather than the current six. Life insurance benefits under the PSSA will be improved, including a 25% reduction in premiums. Though not part of this legislation, a dental plan will be established for pensioners by Treasury Board after consultation with employees and other member representatives. It is important to have that on record in a clear and concise fashion which Canadians can and will understand.

I will talk a bit about what it means to be a survivor and what that term means. I will also talk a bit about the phrase, relationship of a conjugal nature, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan and Nesbit, a judicial ruling of which we in parliament have to take note.

Under Bill C-78 a survivor is defined as a spouse of a plan member at the time of the plan member's death, or the person living in a common law relationship with the plan member for at least one year at the time of the plan member's death.

The courts have been very clear on the issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation. They have indicated that discriminatory language must be removed. Under Bill C-78 words referring to the opposite sex have been taken out. This is in keeping with recent court decisions on the issue of providing employment related benefits to same sex partners.

A key decision in the federal court in Moore and Akerstrom directed Treasury Board as the employer to extend benefits to same sex partners in the same manner as it did to opposite sex partners living in a common law relationship. Treasury Board could not create a separate category for same sex partners because that would have the effect of perpetrating harmful stereotypes.

So it is that Bill C-78 contains neutral language which draws no distinctions between same sex partners living together and partners of the opposite sex living together, while maintaining a distinction between married spouses and individuals living in a common law relationship.

Bill C-78 strikes a balance between the courts and what they have said, what is necessary with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and what is required to maintain the distinction between legally married spouses and two people living in a common law relationship. The definition of a survivor in Bill C-78 follows the guidance provided by the court on precisely this issue.

I elaborate further on the use of the word spouse. It is preferable from a drafting point of view to avoid cumbersome constructions such as repeating the words spouse and common law spouse in the statute. The use of the word spouse as is currently used is appropriate in the case of same sex partners as it would misrepresent their relationship as per Iacobucci in Egan and Nesbit. A term defined such as survivor in Bill C-78 keeps the drafting simple.

I want to speak as well on conjugal, the recognition of common law relationships for the purpose of survivor benefits. It has been a feature of the public service pension plans for many years. These types of relationships are also recognized in other legislation both federally and provincially such as the Income Tax Act and family law.

Generally speaking legislation does not refer to a common law relationship. As a rule legislation sets out the test that has to be met in order to establish the existence of such a relationship. It is important to highlight that the courts have provided direction by setting out the recognized elements of a common law relationship.

Factors looked at by the courts include various elements of cohabitation and conjugality such as a commitment of the two individuals to each other and financial contributions to the necessities of life, et cetera. They looked at the attitude and conduct of each of the partners toward members of their respective families, how the families behave toward the partners, and how the partners present their relationship to the community.

As well, when a word has been considered by the courts, what has been judicially said is incorporated into the meaning of the word as used in the legislation. Courts have extended the meaning of conjugal to cover individuals living in a common law relationship and more recently have extended the meaning to include same sex partners living in a common law relationship.

In Rosenberg, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with the registration of pension plans, the court amended the definition of spouse which refers to a person living in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer to include same sex partner of the taxpayer.

Provisions of Bill C-78 refer to “a relationship of a conjugal nature” in order to capture the judicial meaning of conjugal in reference to same sex partners while ensuring the bill does not go beyond what the courts have said. For these reasons it is necessary to define the word conjugal in the legislation in this manner.

From a legal point of view physical intimacy is not considered the essential element in establishing the conjugality of a relationship. Rather, from a legal point of view the courts have focused on the existence of a committed monogamous relationship in assessing whether a conjugal relationship exists. It is in keeping with Bill C-78 and provides that only one person living in a common law relationship with a plan member will be recognized at the time of the plan member's death. There are no provisions for the payment of more than one survivor benefit to more than one common law partner.

I want to look at the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan and Nesbit, a very important decision and one that we in the Parliament of Canada are now obliged to follow and to recognize in terms of what it represents. It is important to note that under the finding of discrimination five justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in four separate sets of reasons found that the definition of spouse infringed section 15 of the charter based on sexual orientation.

In conclusion, I note that this is a very important issue and certainly one that we as a government take very seriously. In the great scheme of things and in the great balance of fairness and equity, it is important we make sure that Bill C-78 is put in place in an effective manner in keeping with what Canadian society is all about.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to speak in the House when you are in the chair, so I wish I could say it was a pleasure to be here today.

It is a beautiful day in Ottawa. There are people in tour buses and school buses visiting the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, the centre of democracy in the country. Groups of school children and people from all over come here.

What are we doing? What did we do an hour ago? The government moved a motion to restrict debate on a bill as important as this one. That goes against everything that the country stands for.

It goes against some gentlemen I talked to last week in my office in Lethbridge. They would have liked more time to have input into the decision being made here today because they are part of the group of pensioners being governed by this law. They felt they were being shortchanged by not being able to have the input they wanted.

Today is the 52nd time the government has moved closure. I can remember when the Liberals were on this side of the House in opposition and how they used to rail against the government moving closure. Yet they seem to make it one of their everyday tools. As important as the bill is, one would think some time would have been given in the parliamentary timetable to debate it properly and not to bring in closure.

Bill C-78 and the amendments in Group No. 3 that we are specifically debating at this point will change how the government can deal with the pension plans of the public service, the RCMP and the Canadian forces. This huge group of people has worked very hard in support of the country in all aspects. They need to be recognized for the work they have done. They should be able to retire in some form of security. When they see a government sitting on a huge surplus and projecting huge surpluses for the next number of years reaching out to grab $30 billion surplus out of their pension fund, they get somewhat nervous, and rightfully so.

Why would a government sitting on such a huge surplus want another $30 billion? Has it told us what it will do with the money? Will it pay down the debt? Will it pay the unfunded liability in the CPP that has built up? It has not told us that. That is what makes the people who have paid into these plans all their lives and are counting on them to carry them through their golden years somewhat nervous.

The bill will give the government the right to seize the $30 billion surplus. It will establish a public sector pension investment board. That needs some looking at as well. It is yet to be seen if the House will have a say over how that board is structured and who is going to be on it, or if it is just going to be another government patronage group.

Employee premiums will increase from 30% to 40%. The employees are going to fund 40% of this plan, beginning in 2004. How does the government feel that it is entitled to the entire surplus? That needs debate. If the government was responsible or the taxpayers were responsible for the entire contribution, then fine, but they are not. The employees are contributing as well and they do not feel that the government has a right to take the entire surplus.

The motion put forward by the Reform member for St. Albert would force an act of parliament to be passed in order for changes to be made to the contribution rate of the public sector pension plan, which currently is in the hands of Treasury Board. I believe that is a very good motion. I hope it will receive support from the House because decisions that are made to deal with the pension plan should be made by the House, not by the President of the Treasury Board.

The reason for that is because of our constituents. When my constituents come to me for answers about what is going on with their pension fund, how can I respond to them if the decisions have not been made by the House but by a member of cabinet?

All of these issues need to be addressed. More and more we are seeing the purpose of the House eroded by closure and decisions being made outside the House rather than by the elected people of the country. The government member who spoke before me mentioned a definition of spouse, a definition of survivor, that was decided by the courts. More and more we are seeing the government leaning toward the courts to make the tough decisions which need to be established by law and should be established here after public debate. That comes into this whole issue.

One of the reasons people are concerned about this is, if the government balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers, why is it looking at $30 billion? What does it want it for? Why is it so eager to get its hands on it? It seems that if people pile up more than $2 in one spot the government looks for ways to grab it away.

Let us consider our health care system. We have 180,000 people who are on waiting lists for health care in the country. As a country we put $800 less per person into the health care system than our American counterparts. We definitely have developed and the government is supporting a two tier health care system that is not necessary.

Again, the government is sitting on a huge surplus and it wants another $30 billion from this pension fund. Why are some of these things not being done? The waiting time for Canadians to receive health care is increasing. The length of time to see a specialist is increasing.

This all comes back to the fact that there have been severe funding cuts to health care, while at the same time the government is sitting on a surplus. It is looking at every corner of its mandate to find pools of money that it can pull back, but not explaining to Canadians and to the House exactly what that money is going to be used for.

That is all part of the equation which boils down to the problem that we are having with Bill C-78. The whole idea of bringing issues such as these to the floor of the House to be debated is part of what we are discussing today. The government has introduced closure and members who wanted to have a chance to debate this bill will not have that chance. People who want information from this government will not receive it. Therein lies the problem.

I support the member for St. Albert who has worked so hard on all of these issues and put forward some very good amendments. I would certainly hope that members of all parties in the House would have a look at the amendments and consider the fact that the amendments we are proposing would make this bill far better than it is. They would give some accountability through this place, through elected members of parliament, to the people of Canada. If nothing else, the issue of accountability and the issue that decisions should be made here, not elsewhere, is very important.

I would like to say to the people of my riding and certainly right across Canada who are members of this pension plan and who are concerned with what is going on that they can rest assured that this party, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will keep an eye on the government and keep its feet to the fire to make sure that this pension plan is solid and will be there to help them through the rest of their lives.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this morning to Bill C-78 with some sadness and some bitterness.

Sadness, because the government this morning, through the government House leader, took a most, if not the most, undemocratic step one can take in this House.

Sadness, because all the Liberal members voted in favour of this closure.

I would like to take a minute of my time to pay respect to this rapidly disappearing democracy, a minute of my speaking time so all the elected officials in this House may reflect on the effects of abusing democracy in this manner.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. member could tell us whether he wishes to continue his speech or whether he has finished for the moment.

We can continue certainly afterward, if the hon. member wishes, but he may speak only once to each group of amendments.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my speech, but I believe silence says a lot. It is a means of expression.

I would ask your permission to finish my minute of silence. It had lasted barely some 15 seconds.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

This is not usual practice. Usually the Speaker calls for a minute of silence on the death of someone, but not during a debate. I do not think it is appropriate, and I hope the hon. member will resume his remarks.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think the point my colleague is trying to make today about democracy taking a back seat is a very important one. This is not the first time this has happened. There have been at least 50 other such occasions.

Is my colleague's request in order, under House procedure? His allotted time is his. He has ten minutes. We are told that we have ten minutes in which to express our views.

One means of expression is the spoken word and the other is silence. I would like a ruling on this and whether it is acceptable, under parliamentary procedure, for my colleague to say nothing for one minute. That is one form of expression.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The Chair has recognized the point, but I do not think it is usual to have one minute of silence during a speech. The point of a speech in the House is to express an opinion.

If the hon. member wishes to stop speaking for ten minutes or one minute or even 30 seconds during the time allotted him to speak, he may do so with the unanimous consent of the House, but I think one would normally make a speech in the time allotted. That is why I have indicated to the hon. member that, if he wishes to resume speaking, he may now do so.

I invite him to go ahead, or I can seek the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to observe a moment of silence.

Is that agreed?

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we are given to understand that there is freedom of expression in this House. Seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the point my colleague wishes to make is a bit like seeking its approval for what he will say and the approach he will take.

This means that, from now on, what we want to say in the House must first be approved by a majority of members.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The purpose of expression in this House, as I have indicated, is to make speeches, and the hon. member has a right to do that. I do not believe it is normal to have moments of silence during a speech.

One cannot, for example, ask for 10 minutes in which to say nothing. The member must speak.

The hon. member is entitled to do this, and there is no unanimous consent in the House for him to do otherwise. I therefore invite him to continue. I have already made a ruling on this issue.

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I wonder. Did my colleague use language that was in contempt of parliament? No. Did my colleague use props to illustrate what he was saying? No. Is my colleague inappropriately attired, and thus deserving of expulsion from the House? No. Did my colleague use unparliamentary language which could offend the institution? No. Does my colleague have a right to express himself? Is there a translation problem if my colleague decides to remain silent for a minute?

Division No. 425Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I have already made a ruling on this point and I believe we now need to continue debate.

The purpose of this House is to hold debate, and there is time allocated for that, not for silence. If he wants to remain silent, let him do that in his seat, or in the lobbies, but in the House we are here to debate.