Debates of May 25th, 1999

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the same people say the same thing time after time. They wanted six months to expand on what they have said the last few times. It is a lot of—I cannot say hot air because that is unparliamentary—but it is interesting how incensed some of the hon. members on the other side portray their concern for the employees and the unions.

It is interesting that during the committee meetings not one of them came to show their interest, their concern or their questions and to be enlightened on the legislation that is before us, as compared to showing here for the TV cameras their great concern and again, I will not say the word hot air.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the environment committee. I will put up the number of hours I was in committee in the last year against that member's any time. I am here to represent the constituents of Lethbridge. When they come to me with a problem with this bill, I come to the House to debate it.

If I was not at that committee, that is too bad because I was at another committee doing my job there. When the environment bill, the CEPA bill, comes into the House, if that member wants to stick around and learn something about the environment, we will enlighten him too.

Young Offenders Act

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find unanimous consent that the hoist motion in my name with regard to Bill C-260 be deemed to have been withdrawn and the question on the main motion to have been deemed put, a division thereon requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion as presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Sector 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 and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the third time and passed.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Scarborough East.

We have before the House third reading of Bill C-78, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

The proposed amendments touch the full range of pension operations, benefits, contributions and plan administration. The underlying thrust of all these proposed amendments is to ensure the long term sustainability and stability of the Canadian public service pension plans.

I propose in my comments to direct my remarks to one particular aspect of these amendments, and that is the proposed changes to employee contribution rates. Before I discuss the proposed changes it is important for me to give a brief overview of the existing contribution rate provisions.

A review of the existing legislative provisions will provide a rationale and context for the proposed amendments. Under the existing legislative provisions employee contributions to the Canada pension plan, the CPP, and the public service pension plans are now integrated. What does the integration mean? It means the existing integration feature is such that the total contribution rate for an employee is 7.5% of pay composed of both the contributions to the CPP and the public service pension plans.

For an employee earning the average wage the contribution of the public service plans would be 7.5% minus the CPP contribution rate, currently 3.5% of pay, which then equals 4.0% of the pay. To the extent that the CPP contribution rates increase there is an equivalent decline in public service pension plan contribution rates to preserve the constraint that the maximum pension contributions equal 7.5% of pay. In the past with periods of relative stability in contribution rates this integrated formula has served the public service pension plans well.

However, under the integrated contribution rate structure the increase in CPP contribution rates beginning in 1987 has distorted the distribution of employee contributions going to the CPP and the public service pension plans. Under the integrated structure the impact of increases in CPP rates has been such that for employees earning the average wage contributions to the public service pension plans have declined from 5.7% of pay in 1986 to 4.0% of pay in 1999.

To reiterate, over the past decade individual employee contribution rates for the CPP have gone up while those for the public service pension plans have declined. What are the implications of this shift in the distribution of employee contributions between the CPP and the public service pension plans?

To this point I have discussed only employee contribution rates. On the other side of the coin I will discuss a little about employer contributions, that is the contribution of the federal government in its role as employer.

Existing legislation for the public service pension plans is such that the employer must ensure that the various accounts for the public service pension plans are credited with an amount equal to the total cost of entitlements accrued by employees in that year. In other words, the federal government is responsible for the total costs of the plan in a given year less the employee contributions, and as a consequence the declining employee contribution rates. The federal government and by extension all taxpayers have had to shoulder an ever increasing share of the cost of employee pension plans.

I will use the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act as an example. Over the last three decades the financing of that plan has averaged approximately 60% employer funding and 40% employee funding. More recently that distribution has shifted rather dramatically.

For 1999 the distribution is approximately 70% employer and 30% employee. Next year in the absence of any changes to the legislation it is projected that the distribution of the financing of the PSSA plan will shift to approximately 75:25, and by the year 2003 it will be an 80:20 split.

The ongoing shift in the cost of the pension plan to the employer is simply not sustainable. It clearly puts the sustainability of the existing plan at risk unless changes are made. It is our intention to introduce the necessary changes to the contribution rate structure to preserve the long term sustainability of the public service pension plans. With the amendments proposed in the bill contribution rates for the public service pension plans and the Canada pension plan will no longer be integrated. In other words, the public service contribution rates will henceforth be set independently and there will be no overall maximum contribution rate.

In addition there will be a two tier contribution rate structured to more directly match contribution rates with different benefit accruals below and above the average wage as defined by the CPP. The government recognizes that there will be a financial impact on employees as a result of these changes.

In order to facilitate the movement to a long term sustainable pension plan environment, the government is proposing to freeze employee contribution rates to public service pension plans over the period 2000 to 2003 inclusive. Over this period employee contributions on earnings below the average wage as defined by the CPP will continue at the present 1999 rate of 4%. Contributions on earnings above that average will continue at the present rate of 7.5%.

It must be understood however that even though federal employees will thus be spared any increases in contribution rates for their public service pensions from 2000 to 2003, they will nevertheless be subject to the Canada pension plan rate increases schedule for that period, the same CPP rate hike and increases to which all Canadians alike will be subject. Through integration of contributions federal employees in effect have been sheltered from such increases in the past. Now they will have to pay them like all the rest of us.

Fortunately the CPP rate is scheduled to stabilize in the year 2004 as a result of good government planning. What will be the public service plan rates then? They will rise in 2004 after being frozen for four years. Maybe not. Maybe possibly but not necessarily. That is important to note.

For the year 2004 and beyond the Treasury Board will set the contribution rate structure with the intention of returning the cost sharing ratio gradually to the historic average of approximately 60:40 between employer and employees. The employer would continue to assume the larger share.

Employee contribution rate increases may or may not be necessary from 2004 on depending on a number of variables. However, any necessary increases would be gradual. For example, members of the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act can rest assured that no increases in their public service pension contribution rate will be greater than an additional 0.4% per year after 2003. If an increase proves necessary in 2004, the contribution rate will still not be more than 7.9% of the employee's salary. That is the previous rate of 7.5% plus the maximum possible increase of 0.4%.

PSSA plan members can rest assured under the amended legislation that their employee's share of current service costs for their pension plan would never exceed 40%. In other words their contribution rates will not be increased beyond the point where they are paying their historic average cost share of 40%. The historical average therefore will also be limited under the amended legislation.

As for members of the other two public service plans under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, it has to be noted that the cost share between employer and employee is not the same and that the employer is paying the larger percentage of the cost. However, the legislation will provide that the contribution rates of participating members to these plans will not exceed those of PSSA members.

Amendments to the contribution rate structure are one component of the package of changes required to ensure the long term sustainability of the public service pension plans. The bill provides as part of the comprehensive package of amendments the required changes in the contribution rate structure to ensure that the public service pension plans will be sustained over a long period of time. I think that is important to note and I would ask all members to vote accordingly on this very important bill.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have my own hoist motion in process as we speak. I would like to say at the outset that I support the general principle of the bill. However I would like to deal with the controversial section concerning survivor benefits.

One feels a little like treading into an area where angels fear to tread. It is my view that overall parliament has been silent too long on this issue and has by its neglect deferred to others in this area of intense controversy among Canadians. The relevant section that is appropriate to this discussion is 29.4 which reads:

For the purposes of this Part, when a person establishes that he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor for at least one year immediately before the death of the contributor, the person is considered to be the survivor of the contributor.

There are various other supporting sections which we do not need to go to. The obvious issue here is whether there has been an extension of application of survivor benefits to same sex partners who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year prior to the plan member's death. It may well be argued that this is simply reflective of trends in judicial authorities and the government is responding to those trends. However, I would like to speak to the issue of institutional competence to decide such a unique and profound issue of great controversy for many Canadians.

The leading decision in the area is Egan and Nesbit which challenged the spousal allowance provisions of the Old Age Security Act. In May 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal of Egan and Nesbit by a 5:4 margin. The court however was unanimous in its ruling that sexual orientation was an analogous ground and that it triggered a section 15 protection. A 5:4 majority of the court also found the spousal issue discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and therefore infringed section 15 of the charter. However, a different 5:4 majority found that the discrimination was justified under section 1 of the charter.

The conclusion appeared to be based, in part at least, on the view that the court should be reluctant to interfere in parliament's choice in respect to socioeconomic pieces of legislation. In summary, unanimously it discriminates; 5:4, section 15 is triggered; and a different 5:4, a justified discrimination.

It is quite obvious there was a very divided court. It however had the wisdom to offer this advice to parliament in May 1995 when the decision was rendered:

The issue of how the term spouse should be defined is a fundamental social policy issue and parliament should decide it and parliament should listen to and balance the competing social issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological issues that go into this definitional process. The court shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and the court should defer to parliament.

This is hardly enthusiasm on the part of the court to assume a jurisdictional area of competence.

The next leading case is Rosenberg which the government chose not to appeal. It basically showed that the court of appeal was a little fed up with parliament. It had a case before it and was to define or decide the issue. In turn it found that the definition of a spouse could include same sex spouses.

If parliament does not decide these issues a fair conclusion is that the courts will take over. In my view that effectively shuts out the voice of the people of Canada. The chattering classes get to have their say on what they think is the proper definition of a spouse or a conjugal relationship. The courts can have their say as to what constitutes a conjugal relationships but the people of Canada and parliament do not get to have their say.

This issue continues to percolate up to parliament in a variety of ways and the most obvious is the bill before us.

In Bill C-78 the issue of conjugal relationship one year prior to death gets defined through the back door by simply saying nothing. It effectively defers to the latest decision of the supreme court or the court of appeal as the case may be with respect to what constitutes a spousal relationship. This constitutes a complete abdication of our responsibility as parliamentarians. It is a delegation of authority to a bureaucracy with no accountability and that, frankly, is not what I was elected to do nor, I dare say, were you, Madam Speaker.

Another area in which this has arisen recently is with respect to Bill C-63, which delegates the definition of spouse to an order in council. Essentially, what that means is that instead of dealing with it in a straightforward manner, the minister, through the order in council, gets to define what a spouse is for the purposes of the legislation.

In my view this is back door legislation through regulation. It is a delegation and an abrogation of parliament's responsibilities which is inappropriate and for which all parliamentarians should be very worried.

This is essentially an issue of jurisdictional competency. The courts have clearly said that they are prepared to defer to parliament on what the definition is of conjugal relationship or the definition of spouse as the case may be providing that parliament makes the decision.

In the four years since Egan and Nesbit, parliament has not made the decision, is reluctant to make the decision and, in part, probably because of political correctness and pure controversy, but nevertheless a clear refusal to accept its role. As a consequence, the Supreme Court of Canada and courts of appeal in other various provinces have stepped into the vacuum.

We are then left with the definitions to be whatever a particular civil servant thinks the definition should be on a case by case basis. Through a closed door framework of regulatory power or keeping an eye on the latest particular decision of any court in the land then it is an ever revolving decision. Once the decision of a spouse or a conjugal relationship is delegated to a judicial process it will be forever delegated and the people of Canada will not have any say in the process.

Fundamentally, this is about the rule of law and the role of parliament in deciding the issues of our time. This is an issue of significant religious, philosophical and moral consequence which parliament and parliament alone is unique in its ability to balance the competing social issues that come to the table.

Only parliament has a committee process that enables all aspects of these kinds of questions to be analyzed. Only parliament can recognize that the implications of a definition are much broader than the particular individual case before it. Only parliament can reflect on the wishes of its constituents.

In my view, this issue continues to be decided by parliament and needs to be decided by parliament and parliament alone. We are a democratic society. We are subject to the rule of law and we do have various institutions at various levels of competence to deal with various issues.

It is clear that the Supreme Court of Canada is quite willing to defer to the Parliament of Canada on these issues. I have only to note that in the Lavigne decision it was a very split court. When the issues then cycle back up before the Supreme Court of Canada, which they inevitably will, they will weigh the debate. On the basis of where there is a rational basis of a definition, it must be shown that it is proportionate and not at all applied arbitrarily.

If parliament ducks the issue then the courts are left in a void and they or their bureaucrats can make up a definition as they go along. Just because this is a politically difficult issue does not mean that parliament should duck it.

I am told that there is omnibus legislation on the way. This is quite curious. At this point in time parliament has never spoken on the issue so the drafter of the omnibus bill will only have before him or her interpretations of various courts and other relevant issues. It will not therefore become a big surprise that the proposed legislation will reflect the current state of the law.

This would be a great mistake in my view because the drafter of the legislation would not then have had the benefit of parliamentary debate.

In my view the debate should come first, the drafting of the bill second and the debate on the bill third. Once that is completed, the various amendments applicable to Bill C-63 or Bill C-78, as the case may be, and various other pieces of legislation will be amended accordingly.

It is my view that this is a matter of process and the process is completely backward. It should be a process that firstly debates an issue then produces an omnibus bill and then informs all other pieces of legislation.

Parliament should provide guidance to the courts but it has clearly shown an unwillingness to step into this void even when courts are willing to defer to parliament.

My view on same sex benefits is quite irrelevant. This is a matter of process, of institutional confidence and of the rule of law.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was listening very carefully to what the member was saying. It is rather refreshing to hear a member from the government side put the issues fairly straightforward on the table. I wonder if the member has any idea how we can correct this abdication of responsibility by parliament?

We have had a number of occasions where private members' bills on this very issue have been brought forward. Private members' bills are by and large called free votes and in those occurrences members present have voted against them fairly reflecting the wishes of the Canadian public.

Four or five years ago there was a private member's bill on the issue of benefits for same sex couples. As I recall there were 18 Liberals out of 177 at that time who voted for the bill and the rest against it. That was democracy at work. That was parliament speaking on behalf of the Canadian population, on behalf of the voters, saying that it was not ready for this because it was contrary to what many members believed and what constituents were saying. It was just not going to do it. Members would vote against it or they would stay away.

We now have this closure situation and whipped votes. Democracy is really being brushed aside while a few people with an agenda seem to be getting their way.

I know I am putting the member on the spot but does he have any ideas on how we can improve how this place works and improve its democratic process?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, my view is that it is irrelevant what one's view is on the issue. There are two ways to get legislation into the House: first, by means of a private member's bill; and second, by means of the government.

I think at this point the legislation is premature. In my view we debate first, draft the legislation second and then debate the legislation on an issue of such controversy. Once that is done the government would be informed as to the proper decisions to be made in the drafting of the omnibus bill. The drafting of a bill is a little like a tree. Once one makes one decision then several other logical decisions follow. If another decision is made several other logical conclusions follow.

I will put the hon. member back on the spot by saying that he should suggest to his leader that one of their supply days be used for this issue so that it can be debated then. Presumably we will have the view of members on the record and those views would in turn inform the drafter of the bill. The drafter of the bill would then present to the government and to the minister a bill which I would think would be a stronger bill and closer to some level of consensus.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech and his answer is a reasonable one. I would like to ask a very short question. What difference will it make if the vote today goes the way the government members will be whipped?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is presuming on the way in which the vote will go and on whether it is or is not a whipped vote. Just because a vote is whipped does not necessarily mean that people are all subject to the views of the government. That is just simply a reality of politics in the Chamber.

I would, however, indicate to the hon. member that in the absence of an amendment, the bill will in fact create something of a precedent and that precedent will be difficult to deal with ex post facto either by way of an omnibus bill or by way of amending legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

I am pleased to rise at third reading to speak to Bill C-78 , an act to establish the Public Service Pension Investment Board, 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 and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

As I said in the House at report stage, Bill C-78 is of particular interest to me. On many occasions I have risen in this House on behalf of the elderly and senior citizens organizations to defend their interests.

Moreover I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this week is dedicated to senior citizens, to the Fédération de l'âge d'or. As a matter of fact, I will probably rise in the House during Statements by Members to stress the contribution of seniors to society.

This bill is aimed at making changes to the public sector pension plans, and contrary to what the President of the Treasury Board said, these changes are of great concern to federal employees and retirees. Obviously the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill.

In 1997, the life expectancy of Canadians and Quebecers reached unprecedented levels for both men and women. Life expectancy is 81.4 years for women, and 75.8 years for men. Canada comes fourth among countries where people live the longest. However, sadly, in 1997, the number of suicides in Quebec accounted for 37% of the total number of suicides registered across Canada.

Over the past few years a $30 billion surplus has accumulated in the public service, RCMP and National Defence pension plans. The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept that the federal government unilaterally decided to make major changes to its employees' pension plans.

The Bloc Quebecois has been very consistent in what it has been saying about pension plans. Pension plans should not be changed to the detriment of senior citizens.

In Quebec, the majority of people over 50 would like to see some kind of legislation to protect senior citizens. A draft version of the bill had previously been introduced. François Legault, not the provincial minister but the current president of the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, the FADOQ, is showing an interest in this bill.

According to a Léger & Léger poll conducted on behalf of the Commission des services juridiques, 93% of the 1,009 respondents said they were in favour of the urgent implementation of an act to protect the elderly.

These results are in stark contrast with the opinion, held until recently, that seniors do not want to be regulated by an act similar to the legislation for young people, because it might make them feel like children.

As a spokesperson for the elderly, I agree that they should be better protected.

It is definitely not the first time that the federal government tries to reduce its debt at the expense of our seniors. The elderly have always reacted strongly.

There is clearly a similarity between the control exerted by the federal government on the employment insurance surplus that has been growing in recent years. The government claims, wrongly so, that this surplus belongs to it, like the surplus targeted with Bill C-78.

The promise to have joint management of public sector pension plans is very important to the Bloc Quebecois, and a lot of people are asking the government to keep its promise. There must be a management board made up of representatives of the employer, employees as well as retirees.

As I said previously in this House, unfortunately, Bill C-78 does nothing to make that promise come true.

It is only normal for seniors to claim their share. This unilateral appropriation of funds to the tune of $30 billion by the government is an insult. The surplus belongs to both the employer and the employees, not to the government.

Let us not forget that 1999 is the International Year of the Elderly. Moreover, this week is Senior Citizens' Week. I would also like to remind members that the fourth world conference on ageing will be held in Montreal, at the convention centre, September 5 to 9, 1999. I hope I got my message across.

As I was saying the last time I spoke to Bill C-78 in this House, a stamp honouring the elderly is not enough. Let us not forget that, this year, the theme for International Women's Day was “Going Strong—Celebrating Older Women”. Retired women, who often form the majority, are sometimes and even often the poorest.

The Bloc Quebecois has spoken on many occasions in the past against interference by the federal government. The Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-78 because it allows the government to appropriate the $30 billion surplus in the public sector pension plans, just as it did, unfortunately, with the employment insurance surplus.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say about Bill C-78.

There is one point he did not address. However, I would like his opinion. Would this not be just what private businesses were waiting for? Might certain companies not want to follow the federal government's lead and do what they liked with pension funds?

It would be a bit like what happened in Black Lake and Thetford with the asbestos company, which helped itself to some of the surplus in the pension fund.

The member for Laval East mentions the Singer company. I am told that three quarters of the employees are now dead, or will not have the full benefit of their pensions. The company has been dragging the process out before the courts. Employees are being told that, if they do not see the results, their legal heirs will, as if that were any comfort.

I would like my colleague to go into greater detail on the example that the President of the Treasury Board is setting for the private sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague from Frontenac—Megantic that he is absolutely right. When the example comes from higher up we follow it generally.

This government has always arranged things so as to be able to take pension money. He gave the example of the Singer company, in particular. These people lost their retirement fund. It took a court decision to get the company to return the money to its employees.

Unfortunately, things went on so long that many of these employees have died over the years. I do not think there are many left now to recover their pension money.

My colleague is absolutely right, when the example comes from up above, we tend to follow it. I fear that some companies will do as he mentioned and imitate the government.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his comments.

I want primarily to make comments, and if my colleague cares to reply, he is welcome to do so. I agree with him that our government, as I was saying also, is nevertheless fairly creative and managed legally to take money belonging to the workers and employers in the employment insurance fund. The surplus amounted to $25 billion. This money should be used to help provide training and to assist those who no longer have a job.

Today, we see that fewer than 40% of the unemployed qualify for the employment insurance program. In the regions in the Atlantic provinces, including in New Brunswick and in my riding or elsewhere, as well as in Quebec, many people are suffering terribly as the result of cuts to the employment insurance program. It is also clear that the Liberal government cares little for people who need help.

The government has discovered a fund with a surplus of $30 billion. We must admit that the Minister of Finance has the ability to make us think that we are paying for one thing and then use the money for something else.

I wonder whether my colleague agrees that, once again, this government has found the way to take $30 billion that does not belong to it but rather to workers and retired people. Does he not think that there is probably a good way to describe what the government is doing today, but which we cannot utter in the House?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the comments by the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, in New Brunswick. Even before she was elected an MP, I know she was involved in helping people. I heard her speak often in connection with all sorts of activities in her area of Acadia, and her name was already familiar with me.

I must also say that there will be many women among the victims of this government's craze to get its hands on money that does not belong to it—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, for his fine speech on the President of Treasury Board's intentions to get his hands on the loot, somewhat in the same way as the Minister of Finance did with the employment insurance fund.

I am looking at the figures here. Going back 20 months, the surplus was $30.2 billion, and if the trend continues, a quick calculation would indicate that it must be pretty close to $33 billion. It is no longer $30 billion, but close to $33 billion.

Where does this surplus come from? The public service has contributed $14.9 billion, the RCMP $2.4 billion, and finally the Canadian Armed Forces $12.9 billion. Adding all this up, it comes to a surplus of $30.2 billion. Those were the figures as at March 31, 1998, just about 20 months ago. With the projection, I would suggest that the figure would now be $33 billion.

The President of Treasury Board, before being appointed Ambassador to Paris, wants to make his time here in the House of Commons worthwhile by doing something memorable. He is getting ready to deliberately get his hands on this money. Now a committee is going to be struck to administer this surplus, with some friends of the government of course, as was done with André Ouellet, the former member for Papineau—Saint-Michel.

He was appointed chairman of the Canada Post Corporation, with a salary that far exceeds what he was earning as a federal minister, without having to be concerned about voters but with trips all over the world to see how postal services operate in other countries.

So, the President of the Treasury Board is about to set up a new committee to manage the surpluses, but that committee will include very few workers. The minister even neglected to consult the unions of the three groups to find out how these surpluses could be managed.

Also, we learned on March 31, 1998, that $3.1 billion must be paid to retirees, while $1.8 billion is coming into the fund. One might think that if the fund must pay $3.1 billion in pensions while receiving only $1.8 billion in contributions, it will get smaller every year. Not so. A fund of that magnitude can easily earn in excess of 10% annually, without any risk.

At a rate of 10%, an amount of $33 billion will earn $3.3 billion. The current outlay is $3.1 billion. This means that the interest alone provides enough money to pay the pensions to retirees. In fact, the government could even decide right now to give a contribution holiday to all employees of the public service, RCMP and Canadian armed forces. It is worth doing the calculating.

The President of the Treasury Board, and member for Hull—Aylmer, is about to get his hands on $33 billion. What will he do with that money? Perhaps he will do like the government did with the employment insurance surplus. Sixty per cent of workers pay EI premiums but, when they apply for benefits, unfortunately six out of ten do not qualify. They are told that they must pay premiums of $2.55 on every $100 of insurable earnings but that they will not qualify for benefits. Barely four out of ten qualify for benefits, and those benefits are for increasingly short periods and increasingly small amounts.

Clearly, the Minister of Human Resources Development, whom the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques sometimes refers to as the wise guy, led a very sheltered life. He has no idea what it means to earn $8 or $10 an hour. He had everything handed to him and now he is after the $21 billion surplus built up by workers in the past four years. It is truly scandalous.

To get back to Bill C-78, I would like to tell the House about a very sad case. This is something that is going on in the riding of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, with former Singer employees. I am sure members will remember Singer sewing machines. When I was young, my mother always had a Singer.

Employees of this famous multinational cannot get at their pension fund because of the federal government's refusal to help.

On the weekend, I was speaking to one of my friends, a former SAL employee and BC mine worker. His name is Charles Lacroix. He told me he began working in the asbestos mines on November 21, 1970, while he was still very young. Year after year, he paid into the pension fund.

Of course he did not contribute much, but the company contributed 19 times as much as Charles. The matter of the employees' pension fund has not been settled yet. The corporation was replaced by a limited partnership called Lab Chrysotile. The matter of the pension fund is still before the courts. Workers are getting nothing from their pension fund, the matter has been dragging on for the past 13 years.

Does it not sound like Singer, though not as bad? I am told that the majority of Singer's former employees are either dead or very old. If tomorrow morning they were given $30,000 or $50,000, they could not make full use of it. The ball is in the government's court; it is wilfully delaying any settlement. The matter has been before the courts for I do not know how many years. The member for Saint-Jean talked about this earlier this morning. He might do it again.

The employees of the corporation, the asbestos company, of Lab Chrysotile, of Mazarin, which is part of this group, are having problems. The matter is before the courts, to the delight of the lawyers. We know who makes the laws around here. It is not the lawyers. “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”. This is what is going on. Unfortunately, it is always the most vulnerable members of society who foot the bill.

This is exactly what is going on with the employment insurance. Doug Young learned his lesson on June 2, 1997. He got his answer. I congratulate the men and women who ran for the New Democratic Party in New Brunswick, and defeated Dominique LeBlanc, who was on the same wave length as Doug Young. This does not mean Doug Young is unemployed. He is in cahoots with the local premier and he will make as much money, if not more, through raising a toll on highways over there.

I thank and congratulate the men and women who worked hard to bring some order back to New Brunswick and get rid of braggarts like Doug Young.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his clear presentation. It is always interesting to listen to him. His comments always carry a very political dimension. I am a great admirer of the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

He referred to the Singer workers. People think that the case of Singer workers was settled. It was said that Singer workers settled in court, that the case was closed. But there is still an outstanding issue. I am taking this opportunity to tell voters who are listening to us that, from 1942 to 1967, the federal government was responsible for that fund. It allowed the employer to stop paying contributions and, in the end, the employer made off with the money.

In 1994, the Bloc Quebecois began asking questions. The various ministers kept saying that the issue did not come under their responsibility. One can understand why.

Does the hon. member agree that Singer workers were the first victims of what is happening today? The government could see that the surplus was growing, but was unable to tell Singer workers “We recognize that we have a responsibility, we will pay you”. Instead, the government said “No, we do not want to pay you. We have no responsibility in this”. I have always thought the government was already thinking about getting its hands on the pot, as it is doing now.

Does the hon. member agree that Singer workers are the first victims of what is going on today?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you were in this House. Going right back to October 25, 1993, the valiant member for Saint-Jean rose in this House every week to ask questions, of Doug Young in particular, and then his successor, to get him to settle the matter of the former Singer employees as promptly as possible. Here we are in 1999, and it is still not settled. It is now May 25.

That member deserves recognition, and got it last June 2 from his constituents.

Do you know what the President of Treasury Board wants? He wants to set up a board with friends of the regime. But what sort of board will it be? One made up of cronies of the regime, of course.

One need only look at the quality and the savoir-faire of the Minister responsible for Francophonie last week—hon. members know they want to get rid of her—when she met with representatives and heads of state of the various francophone countries throughout the world in Paris, along with my good buddy Jacques Roy. They want to get rid of him too, in an exchange for the President of Treasury Board, in a sort of musical chairs.

I do not know whether the member from Acadia, who is here, has heard of the situation. They were talking about it this morning on the radio. The Minister responsible for he Francophonie—an insult to Acadians—did not even know the year the Acadians were deported. Our Minister responsible for the Francophonie dishonoured us in Paris.

Jacques Roy, fortunately, set the matter straight. In a few years, she will talk about a “small deportation”. What is going on now in Kosovo is exactly what happened in 1755 in Acadia, except there were no television cameras then. It is exactly the same thing. A people was destroyed. They tried to eradicate it.

The minister said “It was some time in the 17th century”. She is out by a century. When you're in the 20th century and you are out by a century it is a 5% error. For the Minister responsible for the Francophonie, this in unforgivable. Fortunately, Jacques Roy was there to set things straight.

I would, in the period reserved for questions and comments, like to give my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the opportunity to add to this. She is entitled, while she questions me.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I took the plane early this morning, and I was not aware that the minister did not know that the deportation took place in 1755. Everyone in Acadia knows that.

However this is simply more proof that a number of ministers in cabinet know nothing of us. It was the same thing with Doug Young, as my hon. colleague indicated. He did indeed get a one-way ticket, but it is unfortunate that he took advantage of people, with the help of his colleague Camille Thériault, who made himself many millions in New Brunswick. Perhaps we will resolve that on June 7 as well.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest to the Prime Minister that he dismiss his Minister responsible for the Francophonie right away. She has done a disservice to Acadians and to all Francophones, especially Quebecers in Canada. She has not represented us well, she does not deserve her position. She must be dismissed immediately. Hats off to Jacques Roy, who set things straight. Fortunately he was there.

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-78. This bill ensures the long term viability of public sector pension plans and puts them on a more solid footing by introducing the investment of contributions in public markets.

Experience has shown that investments in the markets yield a better rate of return, which tends to reduce the costs of the plans. Under the current legislation investment of contributions is limited to government bonds.

Bill C-78 also establishes an investment board, independent of the government, that will be responsible for investing contributions in accordance with the interests of the participants in the plans. Its obligations and authority are set out in the bill to ensure its independence and also its accountability. The bill also contains provisions to ensure that it is an effective operation.

With regard to the investment board, it has been suggested that its directors should be appointed as the governor in council sees fit. Other parties have expressed concern that these appointments would give the government an opportunity to practise patronage. The bill provides that directors be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for a three year period. Directors' terms of office may be renewed for one additional term. The appointment process set out in the bill shows clearly that our intention is to ensure that directors are competent and independent from government.

We have been blamed for failing to include the participants in these pension plans in managing the plans. The provisions of the bill show us that such is not the case. Current and retired employees will be represented in the management of the pension plans through advisory committees that will henceforth be mandatory.

These committees are comprised of representatives of employees and retired employees. These committees will also participate in appointing the directors of the public sector investment board. They will be able to appoint a certain number of members of the nominating committee which recommends candidates for the positions of directors of the board.

During debates in the House and in the committee we were reproached for failing to consult sufficiently with stakeholders. As we have indicated, we consulted with participants and with retired employees through advisory committees on the plans for a number of years. The need to make changes was recognized by the advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act in its 1996 report.

The President of the Treasury Board even established an advisory committee to arrive at an agreement on a new framework for managing and financing these plans. This committee, comprised of representatives of employees, associations of retired employees, representatives of the RCMP and the Canadian forces, met last year on a regular basis. As we know, although there has been agreement on most of the changes proposed through this bill, these consultations have stumbled over the disposition of the actual surplus in the plans. The government thus had to take the necessary decisions and move forward by proposing improvements to the financial management of the plans.

The bill also contains provisions pertaining to the management of the plans. It takes into account the interests of the participants, retired employees and the Canadian taxpayers as well. It reflects most of the elements on which we had agreed in principle.

The proposal in the bill that pertains to the disposition of the current surplus has aroused strong criticism from certain quarters. However, the public, and thus the Canadian taxpayer, supports the government's position on this question. This position is supported by court decisions as well as by the opinions of actuaries and other pension specialists. Many newspapers have also indicated their support for the government's position.

We have also been blamed for failing to make public sector pension plans subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The objective of this legislation is to protect participants in employers' pension plans in areas of activity under federal jurisdiction. The Public Service Superannuation Act already provides equivalent protection to the participants in these plans.

Further to this bill, it has been contended that private sector employers would exert pressure to obtain funds from the pension plans set up for their employees. However, such cannot be the case. It would be hard to imagine provincial governments, which are responsible for employers' pension plans in areas of activity under provincial jurisdiction, allowing private sector employers to withdraw funds from the pension accounts they administer in a fiduciary capacity.

We believe that the plans as amended by this bill will be placed on a solid footing which will permit co-management once the participants are ready to assume their share of the management and risks which are a part of any pension plan. The government remains open to that possibility.

As did the President of the Treasury Board, I can reassure public service employees this bill will be advantageous to them.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to ask a question with respect to this bill. It is one that I just cannot seem to get an answer to.

A number of people are really concerned about this bill. Two very widely disparate issues are at stake here. One is the definition of survivor. The other issue is from those people who have paid into and are benefiting potentially from this pension plan. I would like to find out from anybody on the other side, including the member who just spoke, if their assurances that everything is fine are really genuine and to be believed, then why are so many people so deeply concerned about this?

Furthermore, if the Liberals' position is defensible, then why are they not willing to debate it at length? Why is there closure at every stage on a bill as important as this one? Clearly, if it is defensible, I would think they would want to have a longer time for debate so that the truth in the matter could come out and people could be persuaded that this is a good bill and deserves support. Instead, what we have is closure and those people who are already receiving pension benefits and those who are still paying into it are worried about their future do not have an opportunity to mobilize, to make their phone calls and get their faxes and letters sent here.

I would like to know how the member reconciles the difference. Why is it that if everything is okay, these people understand it is not okay? There is a botch-up here somewhere.