Debates of Oct. 31st, 2001

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-38 in which the government is finally acknowledging that it is willing to raise the foreign ownership restriction from 15% to 45%. I compliment the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley. She has been a leader on the issue and has fought for these changes ever since I was a member of parliament.

If the government had taken leadership on the issue years ago the airline industry may not be in the mess it is in right now. It is important to emphasize that. Canada's airline industry is in a disastrous state. The government is scrambling and grasping at straws to make the changes that will somehow pull it out of the ground.

The government must take responsibility for the mess we are in today. It was directly involved with the Canadian Airlines and Air Canada deal. Who knows to what level it was involved? It is important that this be stated here in the House.

We in my party support the bill. I cannot overemphasize the amount of work my colleague the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley has done on the issue. She has been a leader. She saw the problem when the airline industry was first in trouble. She did virtually everything in her power to get them to come to their senses.

It is important to emphasize that this is not a result of the events on September 11. There is no question that the attacks had a compounding effect, but the industry was in dire straits prior to that. Air Canada was losing something like $1.5 million a day and the government refused to move. I wish the government had done something sooner.

I am not convinced the bill would save Air Canada. Air Canada has huge problems. I have spoken to people directly involved in the industry who are not convinced Air Canada can survive. Technically it should be bankrupt now.

I have stated before on the record that I do not believe bailouts at the cost of the taxpayer are the solution. It is one thing to provide Air Canada with direct compensation as a result of September 11. However to start bailing it out with the billions of dollars it is asking for is not the answer. There must be changes to Air Canada. There must be changes to the way the airline is managed. It is a disaster.

We in the Canadian Alliance will be supporting the bill. I am pleased to stand and support legislation that the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley might well have drafted herself. She is the one who brought the issue to the forefront. She is the one who has advocated it for so long.

It is a pity the government would not listen to her. It is a pity the government would not listen to the good ideas of a member of parliament who knows the industry inside and out, who has many airline workers in her riding and who has followed the issue. It is a pity the government would not put the future of airline industry employees who face losing their jobs ahead of politics. Unfortunately the government only started listening at the 24th hour. It is now uncertain whether this can be saved.

We in my party will be supporting the legislation. It is about time the government woke up.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Employee Benefits

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to what we believe to be a very important issue, an issue of broad national interest, an issue that deals with our nation's pension plans and our retirement savings plans.

I believe all of us as members of parliament hear from our constituents on a regular basis with some degree of concern as to the well-being of their employment benefit plans, the management of those plans and their ultimate retirement plan issues.

My motion is quite self-evident in the very brief motion that it is. It makes the argument that whenever an employee benefit plan or a pension plan shows a surplus, that surplus got there by an over-contribution. It is an actuarial surplus. It should be viewed as the property of the employees, not to be used for anything else. In other words, the employer should not be able to view this actuarial surplus as something that he could in fact dip into and use for any other reason, for any purpose other than improving the benefits of the beneficiaries of the plan or, and we also contemplate another acceptable usage, to give a contribution holiday to the employee if in fact it is a joint contribution plan.

This raises a whole debate right across the country because of the sheer size and volume of these plans today. Members in the House would be interested to know that employee benefit plans constitute the largest single block of capital in the world today. Over 50% of all the trading going on in the stock exchange is employee benefit plans moving their money around. It is huge. My own union is a very small union on an international level and our union pension plan is $40 billion. It really is staggering to look at the scope and size of these plans.

We can understand the temptation of the employers as they view this actuarial surplus to say either that they are in a pinch and can use that money or that they could use that money to expand the company or for any number of reasons.

I first took note of this back when Conrad Black owned Dominion Stores. There was quite a national court battle over the idea. I think there was an $80 million surplus at that time. He believed that he made the contribution to the plan and it was a defined benefit plan. There was an actuarial surplus, ergo he should be able to use whatever surplus there was. In other words, anything above and beyond the stated obligation should be his to use for any other purpose. The employees balked at that and took it to court. Ultimately, when all the dust settled, a split was negotiated.

There has been an absolutely overwhelming number of similar cases since then, which was what made me interested in putting forward a motion. We believe that the courts could use the guidance or at least that this debate over these plans could use the guidance of members of parliament. Some direction is needed because, frankly, the rulings of the courts or of third party arbitrators, whatever the case may be, have been all over the map. They have gone from ruling that yes, it is the exclusive deferred wages being held in trust for the employees, to no, it was the employer that made the contribution, ergo it is the employer's money, to any combination halfway down the middle, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50. Judgments have been all over the place.

There is no comfort level for Canadians. There are many pensioners or people of middle age or beneficiaries of pension plans who are nervous about this. It really came to a peak in my mind, and it was about the time when I drafted this motion, when the government, as an employer, the largest public sector employer in the country, did the exact same thing. It could not help but notice a $30 billion actuarial surplus in the public service employees' pension plan. As he left Canadian politics it was the last action of Marcel Masse, the former president of the Treasury Board, to pass legislation in the House to take every penny of that $30 billion.

There was no negotiation. There must have been a question in the government's mind as to who rightfully owned it, because if there was not a question it would not have had to put forth the enabling legislation to enable it to take it all. However, by its actions the government weighted this otherwise legitimate debate that is going on in the country.

That $30 billion should have been seen as the property of the employees on whose behalf the contributions were made. When we think about that particular case it is worthwhile to point out what a difference it would have made had the government shared even a portion of the $30 billion with the beneficiaries of the plan. We did some research. The average beneficiary from the public service pension plan collects $9,000 per year. It is not exactly a generous pension. Had the government shared even a portion of that $30 billion, and we calculated it at one-third, I believe, it could have doubled each beneficiary's yearly pension to $18,000 a year. It would have made a huge difference in the lives of many senior citizens in the country and there still would have been a surplus for the Government of Canada to use.

When I raise this issue I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that most Canadians want to know the status of any kind of surplus in a pension plan to which they might belong.

I should go further to point out another thing that may come up during the debate. To me it does not matter whether the contribution was made by the employer or by the employee. Many pension plans are joint contribution plans. The employee puts in $5 a month and the employer matches it with $5 a month. It is all the employee's money. Let me state that very clearly. I am sure we will hear contrary opinions today. From my point of view and the point of the view of the labour movement in the country, it is all the money of the employees because it is part of their negotiated wage package.

Let us think about how employers end up putting in contributions to pension plans. A wage increase is negotiated at the bargaining table, at least in the unionized sector. Let us say that it is a 1% raise. Then the employers and employees talk about how the 1% will be given to the employee and usually it is some combination of wages and benefits. In other words, employees take their negotiated wage increase and say they want 25 cents an hour in their pockets and 25 cents an hour put into their pension plan on their behalf. That is how we get the view that it is employees' deferred wages being held for them in trust until they are needed.

In our view, to use the money for anything other than the understood use is a breach of trust. Employers take money off employees' pay packets and put it on hold for them for a specific reason. To seek to take it out and use it for some completely different reason is a breach of trust, a breach of faith. That is what is happening right across the country, or at least employers are seeking to do that right across the country.

I brought with me an absolute stack of recent cases. I will not bore the House with all the details. We can hardly open a newspaper to the financial pages without finding an example, whether it is OMERS, of the Ontario municipal employees' union, which is currently fighting the same fight with CUPE leading the struggle on the employees' behalf, or Moore's of Canada, the garment retailers. Royal Bank employees are having a similar battle. Bank of Canada employees are having a similar battle.

All across the country seniors' groups, groups of retirees and groups of pensioners are coming together to ask this very important and pressing question, which raises the point of why the House of Commons did not deem the issue votable. I really think we are doing a disservice to the many retirees, pensioners and members of pension plans who really do want some direction. They want a legal opinion.

They are many conflicting legal opinions, but they want a legal opinion from this authority, maybe not the highest authority in the land, but certainly this House of representatives should have an opinion to share, to give some direction and to add to this very pressing debate.

As I have said, I was part of a union pension plan myself, the carpenters' union. I served as a trustee to manage that fund and I do know something about the issue. Another point I would make is that in our unionized setting these plans were jointly trusteed. Had I had room within this motion I would have also advocated that there be a mandated joint trusteeship in any trust document forming an employee benefit plan. We believe it is only logical that the interests of those who ultimately would benefit from the plan should be represented at the trustee level. I do not think we would be having the same court challenges or clogging up the legal system with these many challenges were we able to deal with that at the most elementary level, whereby the board of trustees would make the choice as to how it would allocate any kind of surplus in one of these employee benefit plans.

I have had meetings with Canadian union retirees, with members of the Manitoba association of seniors and with other seniors' groups and organizations and activist groups that deal with employee benefit plans. They are seriously in need and desirous of somebody coming forward and ruling once and for all on how these surpluses should be invested or dealt with.

There was a school of thought in the recent Bell Canada pension surplus issue, where the surplus was divided up in roughly the same percentage as the contributions were made. It was a 40% employee contribution matched by a 60% employer contribution. That was the way the surplus was divvied up. That happened at exactly the same time we were debating Bill C-78 and we in the House were making the ruling that the government would take all of the $30 billion and not put one penny into the pockets of either the employees or the beneficiaries of the plan, the retirees.

It is not hard to see where the government found the $100 billion that it gave in tax cuts. It took $30 billion from arguably the most needy people in the country, senior citizens and pensioners living on $9,000 a year from the public service pension plan. It took another $30 billion from the surplus in the EI fund. That is no secret either. Therefore, of the $100 billion, $60 billion came from unemployed people and pensioners. That is nothing to be very proud of.

However it is not my intention to berate the federal government over water under the bridge. Bill C-78 was passed and is now law. In that context it does not give guidance to other private sector pension plans or even to other public sector pension plans as to how they might treat their surpluses. This was a special act of parliament that gave parliament a one time right to take the $30 billion actuarial surplus out of an employee pension plan. The same question still arises right across the country in both the private and public sectors.

It is not just the trade union movement that believes pension plans are a form of deferred compensation for employees. There are legal opinions to that effect. Many people use the test that if costs are bargained in the negotiation of a pension plan the amounts which are agreed on to be put toward pensions are in fact deferred wages. If benefits are bargained and not costs, it would follow that it is the promised pension benefit that is the deferred wage rather than the contributions which pay into the benefits. I believe that is the distinction. If it is the benefit that is bargained and not the contribution, then in a defined benefit package there would be no question. Employees would have satisfaction without going to the courts. They could just look at the jurisprudence.

If it is in fact the defined costs, or in other words, if we are dividing up who would pay into the plan, if that is part of the negotiating process, at least in some legal opinions there is no question that it is the deferred wages of the employees that are being held in trust for the employees and they should be considered the exclusive property of the employees, to be used only in two ways: to sweeten the benefits upon retirement or to give the employees a contribution holiday for a period of time.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised some interesting ideas, but I cannot support the motion. I will give the main reason I cannot support the motion first, then give some background and come back in more detail on why I cannot support it.

The basic reason is that the member's motion is a good example of what might be called the law of unintended consequences. The intent is to benefit workers in pension plans over employers, but the effect would be otherwise because the critical point that the motion fails to recognize is that pension plans are voluntary.

If this motion were to succeed and become the law of the land, the primary impact would be that we would have far fewer companies willing to set up or continue with pension plans and workers would be forced to make their own contributions to RRSPs or defined contribution plans. That is more or less what the Alliance was arguing for when we had the debate some time ago dealing with Canada pension plan reform.

We would have a retreat from the stability and the security arising from defined benefit plans which currently exist today. We would go to the much less secure world of employee directed plans where the security of the employees would be reduced. The unintended consequence of this motion would be to reduce the security for employees in their older years rather than to increase their wealth which is the intent of the motion.

I will give a bit of the background provided by the department on how the current system works. One would not want all the department's work to be of no avail. The Pension Benefits Standards Act, PBSA, is the main federal act that regulates pension plans in federally chartered enterprises. This includes banking, interprovincial transportation and telecommunications. Other private pensions are regulated by the province.

The PBSA is administered on behalf of the government by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, and covers some 1,100 pension plans. OSFI clearly makes every effort to protect the rights of pension plan members having due regard for the voluntary nature of pension plan sponsorship. If we ignore the fact that pension plans are voluntary we do so at our extreme peril, which is the critical deficiency of the motion.

Bill S-3 which was introduced in 1998 is another bill that is relevant to this debate. Major changes in the bill included enhancing planned governance measures by placing more emphasis on the importance of the responsibilities of plan administrators. It required administrators to provide more information to plan members and former members on the financial condition of the plan and a means to facilitate agreements between employers and plan beneficiaries on the distribution of surpluses.

The bill specified the manner in which employers who sponsor pension plans with surpluses could withdraw a portion of the surplus. That should be of particular interest in today's debate. In June the government announced specific regulations which relate to the mechanisms for an employer to establish claims to a surplus.

The measures in Bill S-3 and the subsequent regulations provided for an explicit process for the determination of surplus ownership of pension plans. These changes created an environment where employers and employees have the opportunity to work together in dealing with pension plan surpluses.

So much for the status quo and the system under which we work today. I will now return to the law of unintended consequences. The hon. member's motion would have precisely the contrary effect to what he intends. To illustrate and explain that point more clearly we should make the key distinction between defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution pension plans.

Under defined benefit pension plans the employer guarantees to the employee a certain fixed sum of money when that employee retires and therefore is required to build up the capital to fund that future contribution. The risk is borne by the employer and that is the setting in which surpluses arise. There may be excess surpluses and the debate is about who will control them.

Under defined contribution pension plans there are really no surpluses because each employee makes a defined contribution every month or every year. The stock market and the bond market would determine the amount of money that an employee would receive in retirement.

When everybody thought that the stock market never went anywhere but up, until recently that is, defined contribution plans were becoming more popular. A lot of companies are shifting away from defined benefit where the employee has the security of knowing what his or her future pension would be and the risk is borne by the company to define contribution and where the employee gets whatever the market delivers on his or her investment.

It is too early to tell but I suspect this enthusiasm for defined contribution waned a bit in the last several months. People have learned that the stock market does not go exclusively up but sometimes goes down. The risk for the individual whose life savings are in the stock market is now perceived to be greater than it used to be.

This comes back to the Alliance's love affair with defined contribution self-directed pension plans when we were dealing with Canada pension plan reform. Thankfully we did not do this and we preserved the security of the pensions of Canadians through the Canada pension plan rather than subjecting each individual to the whims of the market. It might have looked good back then but it looks a lot less favourable and more risky today.

If companies were sole contributors and were required to say that the surplus belonged to the workers entirely, even if it were the company that put in 100% of the contributions, we can bet our bottom dollar that companies would not want that. Companies would not agree to it if this motion were to pass. Pension plans are voluntary and they would get out of it.

The trend that we have been observing from defined benefit toward defined contribution would accelerate. The unintended consequence of the member's motion would accelerate the shift away from defined benefit pension plans and toward defined contribution. The net effect would reduce the security and the income of today's employees rather than increase their wealth. That is a more than adequate reason to oppose the motion.

[Joe Peschisolido, Canadian Alliance, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speechless. The parliamentary secretary has put forth a position with which I, unfortunately, have to agree. The motion put forth by my colleague is a very well intentioned motion. The intent is there to protect workers and ensure that all Canadians, of whatever background, have a solid nest egg, something to retire on.

When my father came over from Italy he was part of the union movement. He started out as a carpenter and a painter. He was a member of local 1080, the painters and allied trades in Toronto. The pension plan was a very important one for him. He moved on and started his own business but he does receive a pension plan.

The important thing for me in the Alliance Party in Canada is that there is choice. In our constitutional parliamentary system we have the judiciary and the parliamentary system. With the bringing into effect of the charter of rights, the distinction or the relationship between those two bodies, it is not that it is being blurred but it is in the process of being figured out.

In looking at the motion, I do not believe it is balanced enough. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, it takes an approach that removes a lot of the individual's freedom for decision making. When my father was a drywaller and a painter, he had companies and subcontractors that were willing to participate in a type of pension system. That was very important.

I was going to talk about the flaws in my colleague's motion but I would be redundant because the six points I would have mentioned have been gone through by my colleague from the government side. However we can always trust a Liberal to put a partisan edge on a debate that deals with the well-being of Canadians. That is the key point here.

I am sure all members in the House want to make sure workers are taken care of. We have a process. It may not be the final word on determining surpluses but it is a process and for the House to support the motion I think would tie the hands not only of the courts but of parliamentarians in this sitting and in the future.

For that reason, I and the official opposition cannot support the motion even though we support the intent of the motion to provide a solid pension system for the hardworking men and women of Canada.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to intervene in connection with Motion No. 401 by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees.

I would like to take a few moments to dissect the motion, starting with the first part calling for the sums paid into pension plans or employee benefit plans to be considered deferred wages.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are naturally in favour of the motion. We are not at all bothered by considering the employee portion of pension plans or benefit plans deferred salaries.

In professional sport, that is how the multimillionaire players get deferred salaries years after retirement. These people are, it must be kept in mind, earning millions of dollars a year. They are not our average wage earners.

Another part of the motion I think it important to address is the part about these pension plans remaining the exclusive property of employees. If the motion had been law, I think it would have prevented certain unscrupulous governments from dipping into pension plans and EI funds.

I am sure the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, who is the Bloc Quebecois' EI critic, would agree that employers and employees own Canada's EI fund.

As the member for Winnipeg Centre explained so clearly, this would resolve many decades long legal disputes. One particular case that comes to mind is that of Singer, an American company which manufactured sewing machines.

One fine day it decided to shut down its Saint-Jean plant, cross the border and leave for the United States, taking with it the employees' pension fund. It took years to resolve the problem in the courts, so many years that most of those entitled to draw pensions under the plan had died by the time the case was settled. The majority of them had died and those still living were 80 or 85 years old and had only a few more years left to benefit from the pension fund to which they themselves had contributed.

Clearly, we agree completely with the motion put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

In conclusion, however, I find it unfortunate that the motion is not votable. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I commend him for bringing it forward. It harkens back to when the government, through Bill C-78, raided $30 billion out of the federal superannuates' pension and did so while breaking its own guidelines set forth in Bill S-3 which was originally introduced in the House in 1997.

While I do not support the member's motion completely, I do believe the government ought to follow its own rules as set forth in Bill S-3, which did provide at least a framework to ensure that the interests of employers were balanced with the interests of employees and the third group, the people who had already retired and stood to benefit.

Clearly the government was in violation of the principle of Bill S-3 and in fact broke its own rules by arbitrarily taking $30 billion out of the superannuates' pension fund without actually following some type of rules based methodology which would have ensured fairness to all parties involved at that time.

Bill S-3 actually put forth some level of guidelines. It outlined that the surplus could be accessed if two-thirds of the current members to the plan and two-thirds of the former members, retired employees, agreed. If they could achieve 50% but not necessarily 65% then the employer could go to arbitration. This again would help to ensure that all shareholders' interests were looked after and met in a rules based way.

The hon. member for Markham made a good point. Given the current tumultuous times in the capital markets, it would be of significant benefit to an employee or a retired individual receiving a pension to have that level of defined benefit. There would certainly be a tremendous peace of mind in that regard. I think even the Canada pension plan fund lost 15% of its value this year. I wish my portfolio had done that well. A 15% loss sounds pretty good at this juncture. The fact is that there is a benefit.

Going back over the last several years of bull markets, people started to forget that sometimes markets actually go down as opposed to going up all the time. I believe that had the hon. member for Markham still been an economist he would have foreseen this and would have demonstrated his impressions and foresight in the world of private sector bank economists.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

His portfolio went up.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

That is good because his income went down when he was elected.

The fact is that there is a significant exposure for employers when they manage these funds. They have the downside risk of ensuring the funds are there for the employees and retirees. That being the case, the employees have the risk of employers taking funds from the pension and going bankrupt. We need to understand that there are significant risks on both sides which is why there needs to be an enforceable rules based system by which we can ensure fairness to all parties.

What disappointed me most about the government's arbitrary and unfair treatment of superannuates was when it chose to ignore the rules based system as put forth in Bill S-3 and to pursue a policy that was short-sighted, unfair and consistent with the government raiding the EI fund and using funds designed for specific interests and to meet general revenue needs. I have seen a few public policy initiatives by the government that have disillusioned me but the treatment of superannuates' pensions at that point was something that united all opposition parties.

A good many members opposite agreed privately but of course they had to be whipped into shape at the appropriate times. Many of them were appalled even with their own government's heavy-handed approach to superannuates, people like RCMP officers and retirees, and people in the military. They served their country and were treated shabbily by the government in ignoring its own guidelines in the brief. I understand exactly why the hon. member would move the motion. I am sure he can remember the government's unfair and heavy-handed approach at that time.

It is very difficult for the government to expect private sector employers to follow guidelines set forth by legislation passed in the House, or as introduced in the Senate in the case of Bill S-3. How can we expect private sector employers to follow those guidelines the government ignores those guidelines when it is convenient? I think that would be a principle upon which all members in the House could agree. Certainly all opposition members would agree that the government ought to follow its own guidelines.

That trust was broken between the government and public sector employees at the time of its arbitrary theft of the funds from the superannuates pension. It was absolutely unacceptable and disillusioning. Every member of the House at that time heard countless appeals from superannuates, from people who had served this country. For the government to have turned its back on those people speaks of the unprecedented and near toxic levels of arrogance that emanate from government benches. It is only getting worse as members of the natural governing party feel increasingly ensconced in their feudal chairs.

Those issues can be dealt with through some of the work that is being achieved by the PC/DR Coalition and other opposition parties. As we bring together like-minded intelligent Canadians seeking better government in the interests of all Canadians, by the time the next election occurs there will be a competitiveness--

[An hon. member]

Take an Aspirin.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

The hon. member opposite suggested that I take an Aspirin. He should suggest that because his government has created nothing but headaches for Canadians, and nowhere are those headaches more pronounced than here on the opposition benches.

[An hon. member]

I would have suggested acetylsalicylic acid instead of Bayer Aspirin.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

There was a suggestion that I not take an Aspirin. My friend from the New Democratic Party suggested I take a generic brand, which brings me to our health minister who is everyone's favourite generic leadership candidate, but that is a different issue for another day.

There is so much to criticize about the government that it is difficult to maintain some level of attention. Perhaps we need generic Ritalin so that opposition members can focus.

We have to ensure that all governments follow rules based methodologies that are already in existence. Only then can we ensure that private firms follow those rules. Until the government is willing to play by those rules, I think the hon. member is quite right. I disagree with the specific notion that in an arbitrary sense all these surpluses should go back to the employees. However, we do need to ensure that governments are held accountable when they break their own rules in not ensuring fairness among the players, the employers, the employees and the retirees.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues across the way have lost sight of what we are talking about or the public has forgotten, because sometimes when a debate goes on other things come into it, I want to reinforce the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre:

That, in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees.

A lot of Canadians believe this already happens. We have heard horror stories over the years where different employers raped the pension plans or went bankrupt and used the pension plans and the employees were left out in the wilderness in the snow. They were left going into their senior years with nothing.

Canadians think that governments addressed this issue and put in strong regulations to make sure this did not happen. A lot of people out there believe this has already happened. It is surprising that sometimes private members have to bring forward good motions and good pieces of legislation to address the downfall and the lacking of the government of the day and certainly, that is the case here.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been involved with employees for a number of years. I am sure over time he has seen a number of cases where this has happened and the employer has utilized the funds.

I think of the situation of the Giant mine workers in Yellowknife and what they went through with their severance packages and pension plans when that mine went under. The government, and I believe it was under the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, took over the mine and literally gave nothing back to those employees. They were left out in the cold, which again is no surprise with the government.

It is crucial that we as private members bring these motions forward and remind the government of what is important. Canadians want to see values. They want to know that when they make investments in their pension plans, they will reap the benefits of those pension plans.

It is not just those employees that reap those benefits. Each and every one of us knows retirees in our communities. Often employees leave their employment with a pension that gives them $10,000 a month. Mostly they are minimal pensions that give a person a living to some degree. Those people are interspersed in every small community, village and town in the country. Those are the people who keep our local economies going. The more we can put into their pockets in their retirement, the better off we are as a country. That is what sustains our local economies and builds the country we know and we want to be proud of.

I am extremely pleased that my colleague has brought forward this motion. I want to support his motion. It has certainly been good listening to some of the members who have supported it. Obviously there are those who had some rather lacking comments about it for what I consider invalid reasons, but so be it. That happens in the House.

I reflected on some things as my colleague from the PC/DR Coalition was speaking. He talked about the need for the government to follow through on what it does so that the private sector will also follow through. It is tough ensure that the private sector will follow through on rules if the government does not do it.

Pay equity was the prime example. For 14 years public servants had to fight the government year after year after year. Literally hundreds of thousands, actually millions of dollars went to legal fees to fight the employees who were claiming rightful equity within the public service.

Finally the government was forced to come through with it. There were 14 years of legal fees and fighting. Through that whole process that was the example it was setting for private industry in Canada. It said that pay equity was not important, not worth diddly-squat. It made that fight in the private sector that much tougher.

It is crucially important that the government practice what it preaches. Otherwise it does not get the support and does not have the trust of the public.

There is another situation. I almost do not want to bring it up but I do so because it happened this afternoon and it bothered me that the government would take this stance. We talked about the cluster bombing in Afghanistan. Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is renowned internationally for his efforts to ban landmines. Canada sings its praises about banning landmines. We could not get the U.S. on side and never could, but Canada went out there and sang its own praises. All the Liberal members I am sure jumped up at numerous times and clapped and cheered because they were opposed to landmines.

Today we heard about cluster bombs. They will land and not explode, but they will explode later. They act just like landmines. We heard that we have to do that sometimes. No, we do not do it ever. If we do not believe there should be landmines, then we follow through all the time. It is absolutely inhumane to leave bombs sitting around for children to walk over. The small children are the ones who suffer the most.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member has somewhat strayed from the subject we are debating now.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points to make in support of my colleague's private member's motion.

This brings home the point of the need for this type of legislation. I recently had a conversation with one of my legal colleagues. He was telling me about a current situation. I will change the facts a little so it is not clear about the specific case we were talking about. I do not wish to divulge any of the information he specifically gave me.