Yvan Loubier

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-71.

I would like to begin by focusing on one particularly unpleasant aspect of this bill, the one that changes the rules of the game.

The Minister of Finance is changing the rules of the game in the way funds are allocated to the provinces to fund social assistance, higher education and health.

In this budget, without warning—and this particular provision is in Bill C-71—the Minister of Finance decided that, in contrast to past procedures, the most important criterion for the allocation of funds for social assistance, higher education and health would no longer be the provinces' needs but their population, over a two year period.

That changes the picture; that changes things. When it comes to the funds allocated to social assistance to help the most disadvantaged, the most important criterion should not just be the provinces' population, but their needs as well.

If in one region of Canada, in one province that has urgent needs because there is a higher incidence of poverty, the logic of social policy is to give to those in need.

The Minister of Finance decided unilaterally, without talking to anyone, especially not to the government of Quebec, that henceforth all the money would be allocated according to population. As a result, Canada's most populous province, Ontario, will get about 64% of the funds. As early as this year, Ontario will be the big winner regarding the Canada social transfer since, all of a sudden, population becomes the sole criterion for the allocation of funds, even in the case of social assistance, and that province has the largest population.

This means that, over the next five years, under this new formula, Ontario will get about $5 billion out of the $11.5 billion in new money from the federal government. By comparison, Quebec will get $900 million.

Under these unilateral arrangements made by the Minister of Finance, Quebec will suffer an annual shortfall of at least $350 million over the next five years.

During the debate that we had at report stage in this House, some Liberal members said “There is no pleasing you. You are not happy because we are treating all Canadians across the country equally. They are all on an equal footing”. That is not the issue. It is important to stress this again, because the members opposite have a very hard time grasping it. Perhaps this is due to a lack of interest in the most disadvantaged across Canada, a lack of sensitivity or a lack of compassion.

It is important to understand that the funds provided for a social policy must be allocated to those who need them. With this new criterion solely based of population, we can no longer talk about a social policy but, rather, about a policy of equal redistribution of funds across Canada, on the sole basis of population.

The government cannot claim to have a Canadian social transfer, a social policy, when this policy no longer targets low-income households.

Some might say that, if there are more Quebecers who are unemployed or on welfare, Quebec's policies should be a little more proactive and contribute to economic growth and job creation. I agree. Clearly, Quebec has to do more. It must innovate, take up the challenge of the new economy and grab the bull by the horns, as it were, in order to reduce our level of unemployment and steadily eliminate pockets of poverty.

But the federal government must do its part as well. Quebecers are paying approximately $31 billion in taxes every year to the federal government. It would perhaps be a good idea for the Liberal MPs from Quebec to one day do their job properly. I will explain what I mean.

Quebec is still not receiving its fair share. We sound like a broken record. A journalist once told me we were playing the same old tape. Quebec is not receiving its fair share. If Quebec were to receive its share of federal government spending, we would not need to point this out. The situation has not changed in 30 years. The federal government is systematically discriminating against Quebec.

If it did, perhaps Quebec would not have 30% of all the welfare recipients in Canada. Perhaps Quebec would not have, year in and year out, a two or three percentage point difference in its unemployment rate compared to the Canadian average, never mind its position compared to Ontario. Perhaps the Canada social transfer would never have been necessary, since Quebec would have had fewer people unemployed or on welfare, but that is not how it is.

I will give some illustrations, because this is so important. We do seem to be repeating ourselves, but I will do so ad nauseam, until the federal government shows some justice toward Quebec.

Taking the example of goods and services expenditures, Quebec has 25% of the Canadian population but, for the past 25 years, federal goods and services expenditures in Quebec have been far lower than its demographic weight.

For goods and services alone, the government's day to day spending, last year the federal government spent 20% in Quebec. That is 4 percentage points short. We have 24% of the population, and the federal government purchases goods and services from Quebec companies which account for only 20% of its total expenditures in this field. That difference means jobs, and poverty as well. There would be less poverty if that figure were raised from 20% to 24%.

Looking at federal government capital investments, again Quebec is not being treated fairly. Quebec receives 19% of the federal government's capital and general investments, while its population is 24% of the total. Once again, that difference means jobs, construction jobs. It would also mean less poverty, if we increased the percentage of federal capital investments from 19% to 24%.

Federal subsidies to businesses shrink every year as well. Only 18% of federal funding to Canadian business goes to businesses in Quebec. It is easy to say that Quebec businesses have a low productivity record. The fact of the matter is that the federal government siphons off $31 billion worth of our taxes annually in Quebec. It does not give us our fair share, which is about a quarter of the money.

The federal laboratories in Quebec receive only 16% of all capital spending on federal labs. Unless things have changed in the past few minutes, we still have 24% of the population and get only 16% of federal funds for federal government labs.

For research and development, the figure is generally 14% compared to 24%, although R and D is everything and will make our businesses competitive in the future. R and D is what makes the difference between countries or regions of countries ranking among the best in the world or being left by the wayside. We get 14% of the money for research and development.

No one can tell me that this does not have an impact. It has a definite impact on the relative competitiveness of Quebec and Ontario. Ontario gets help from the federal government, while Quebec gets neglect.

In science and technology, Quebec gets 13% of the federal jobs. The number one province in that respect is Ontario. For all the expenditure items I mentioned earlier, the winner is Ontario with 45% to 50% of all the federal funds allocated for goods and services, investments and general capital expenditures.

For several years now we have been doing an annual tally of what readjusting federal spending could mean in terms of job creation, if it were based on Quebec's demographic weight. Do members know how many jobs this means per year?

If, tomorrow morning, the federal government decided to do justice to Quebec—it would be even better if Quebecers decided to achieve independence and keep all of the $31 billion they send every year to the federal government—and invested in Quebec a fair share of research and development, goods and services and so on, there would be between 30,000 and 42,000 more jobs on the Quebec labour market. This is a lot of jobs.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-71, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 43 on page 3 and line 1 on page 4.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who was not pleased because we want to delete some lines in his minister's bill. But we are extremely happy to propose the deletion of these lines. We hope that all parliamentarians in this House will realize that our motion only makes sense.

Bill C-71 includes measures that are clearly inadequate, such as those designed to fight poverty, particularly child poverty. The legislation also includes measures that are outrageous. I will just mention the unilateral change in how the Canada health and social transfer is distributed among the provinces.

As for child poverty, one would have expected that, in this budget, the Minister of Finance and the whole cabinet would have shown a little more compassion.

There is some improvement with regard to the national child benefit. This is clearly not enough, given that the Minister of Finance could have taken that measure as early as last year, let alone this year, with the huge surpluses that are accumulating daily in the federal treasury.

Last year, that is during the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 1999, the Minister of Finance accumulated a surplus of $15 billion. He used almost all of that money to pay off part of the debt. The minister could have taken a more balanced approach. There is balance and there is balance; a balanced approach should also be taken to making choices about how the tax dollars of Quebecers and Canadians should be spent.

The Minister of Finance could have set aside a few billion dollars of this surplus of $15 billion, instead of handing it over to creditors who do not need it. He could have waited a few more months. He could have used this money to further increase the national child tax benefit.

Do people realize what this increase in the child tax benefit will mean in dollars for low and middle income families? It will put an additional $180 to $350 a year into their pockets. This benefit for Canada's poorest children is not a lot when compared to the substantial tax relief the Minister of Finance made available to top income earners.

Here is an example: the savings for someone earning $250,000 a year will be $3,000 a year starting this year and continuing in subsequent years. A child who probably goes hungry every day gets an additional $350 a year at most, while someone with an income of $250,000 gets a $3,000 tax break.

Did the Minister of Finance make the right choice? From the standpoint of equity, social justice, and compassion, it is the worst choice a finance minister has made in quite a few years.

Let me give the figures again: a surplus of $15 billion for the fiscal year just ended. This year, if the tax dollars continue to come in at the same rate, the Minister of Finance will have over $20 billion in the surplus at the very least. It seems to me that he could have made an effort. He could have kept back some of this money to help poor families.

This clown rises just about every day in this House to proclaim his desire to improve the lot of the most disadvantaged members of society and of the children of Canada who are living in poverty. He ought to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. For years we have been waiting for some action from this man, and none has yet been forthcoming.

It would have been very simple for him for several years, and this year even more so, to plug up the tax loopholes, as we have been promised every year since 1993. He had even told us that, in 1999, the famous family trust loophole would be eliminated.

We will recall that, in 1996, the auditor general had uncovered a scandal involving two family trusts with total assets in excess of $2 billion, which had been transferred to the United States without a single cent of tax being levied, a loss of some $600 million or $700 million in taxes to Revenue Canada.

Those trusts were allowed to escape. This year, the Minister of Finance promised that this leak and the tax loophole that made it possible would be plugged. This has not yet happened. The Minister of Finance has not yet done anything about the tax loophole which makes tax evasion possible for millionaires and billionaires, with his blessing, while Canada's poorest children get $180 a year from him.

This is unfair. It is not logical to see children going hungry, while tax loopholes are being maintained for millionaires. These loopholes save them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. To give a tax saving of $3,000 to those with an income of $250,000 and over but only between $180 and $350 to the poorest families in this country does not make any sense.

The Minister of Finance is also still talking about the tax reductions to middle income taxpayers. These, however, are not real. There is talk of broadening the base for GST credits, which is good news. But when one looks at what this means at the end of the day, given how much taxpayers are paying out, since ours is among the highest taxation levels in the world, this is all smoke and mirrors.

Let us see, since 1986, how Quebec and Canadian taxpayers have had to pay out because the tax tables and the entire tax system are not fully indexed.

Between 1986 and 1996, the fact that income tax on supplementary income did not take into account the increase in the cost of living, the GST credits did not reflect the change in the cost of living above 3% inflation, federal family allowances were not fully indexed as they should be, the child tax credit had to be paid back, all this and the fact that all Canadian tax measures are not indexed meant that between 1986 and 1996 average Quebec families paying tax to Ottawa—for a while yet, perhaps several years—paid $7,000 more than they should have paid had the tax tables been fully indexed.

Residents of Ontario subject to the same mechanisms as Quebec taxpayers paid $10,000 too much. Had the tax tables been fully indexed, we would have had this as net income in our pockets over a ten year period from 1986 to 1996.

The cup is nowhere near our lips. We are nowhere near substantial reductions in taxes, when our tax system systematically robs us because taxes are not indexed. This is the first thing the Minister of Finance should have done when he took office, had he been a little more dynamic and stopped watching the economy work for him and the provinces and the unemployed doing his work by eliminating the deficit and increasing the surplus. But he did not.

We have a lazy Minister of Finance, who lets things go as they will, but takes all the credit. He does not say that every year he creams off the employment insurance surplus, which represents several billion dollars.

We are now talking $20 billion that were literally grabbed by the minister from the fund. But he does not mention that. He does not mention that he starved the provinces, through the Canada social transfer, of cash needed to fund health, post-secondary education and social assistance. No, the minister says nothing on that score.

He does not mention that it is the unemployed, the workers contributing to the employment insurance fund and the provinces that did the job for him. He is taking all the credit. He is no doubt getting ready for the leadership race. This is outrageous. It is despicable to play petty politics on the backs of the poor, as the minister is doing, while taking credit for the sacrifices made by others. This is shameful.

As for the Canada social transfer, the Minister of Finance had a little surprise in store for us in the last budget. Without any warning, without informing anyone, he decided that, to reward some provinces, particularly Ontario, which was so quick to get down on its knees to sign the social union framework agreement, but also British Columbia and Alberta, he would give them a nice present, again without informing Quebec.

Ontario was probably in the know. Mike Harris reacted so strongly during the first few minutes of the budget speech, that he could not possibly not have known.

The minister offered these provinces to change the method, based on population, used to distribute the money from the Canada social transfer. The result of this was that Quebec lost $350 million annually, while Ontario got about 50% of the Canada social transfer.

My motion today seeks, among other things, to change the calculation method announced without warning by the Minister of Finance, and to revert to criteria based on the province's needs, as was previously the case.

[Division No. 386, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that I do not grasp the concept of risk, he is badly mistaken. In fact, one of my main arguments is that, if he claims that past pension deficits were absorbed by the federal government, then the President of the Treasury Board should table the figures. According to our calculations, the federal government's contribution in that respect is around $5 billion.

So, given a contribution of $5 billion and an anticipated actuarial surplus of $30 billion, this leaves some $25 billion that does not fully belong to the government; this amount belongs equally to taxpayers and the government. This is why we are advocating a collegial approach to managing the funds and related risk, instead of the dictatorial approach proposed by the President of the Treasury Board through Bill C-78.

I clearly understand the concept of sharing risk. In fact, when I did my masters in university, part of my thesis dealt with that issue.

[Division No. 386, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right.

In dealing with a problem, a dispute in a large firm, for example, because there are surpluses in the workers' pension fund, we will no longer have any valid arguments. It can no longer be said that this is not how it works, when the federal government allows itself under Bill C-78 to do everything it is not supposed to do, namely go off with the money.

We will no longer have any valid arguments. My colleague is right on that. I recall a time not so far off when one of Conrad Black's businesses was at issue, and Conrad Black said “The surpluses do not belong to the employees anymore, they belong to me”. How can we argue that he is wrong.

In this case, given that contributions are made by both sides and the future of the pensions of today's workers is at stake, how can we say “You should sit down and discuss this”? We have reached a point where we no longer have any valid arguments.

The other thing I would like to point out, in connection with what the hon. member mentioned about the employment insurance fund, is that the government has just legitimized a fraudulent practice—that of going off with the money.

We recall the Minister of Finance saying last November “I foresee the possibility of introducing a bill on the management of the employment insurance fund surplus”. He had a bill like this one in mind. However, faced with popular opposition—that of the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties in the House—he backed away.

However, the Minister of Finance dreamt of having this legitimacy, since at the moment, it is not yet certain that he is within the law when he dips into the employment insurance fund, and there are cases before the courts at the moment. Among others, the CSN is making representations on this issue, on the grounds that the finance minister's interpretation of the Employment Insurance Act is stretching the point somewhat. It might snap, because the Employment Insurance Act includes pretty clear provisions on the use of surpluses, and reducing the deficit and paying off the debt are not options. The EI surpluses must not be used for such purposes.

The Minister of Finance dreamed about tabling a bill like that, but he does not have the same agenda as his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. He has a different and more secret agenda, but everyone knows about it. I am referring to the leadership race. It would have been terrible for a politician to table a bill legitimizing the use of funds that do not belong to the government.

[Division No. 386, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand the hon. member's question. There are two major pension plans in Quebec's public service, plans that are entirely usual. There are risks in investing just as there are benefits in it.

What I mean is that it is the contributions of employers and employees that are paid in part into the Caisse de dépôt et placement, which manages the surplus on behalf of these two funds. What the committees keep is what they need to pay the pensioners' benefits. So the plan is not more risky than any other. The risk is shared, because the employer's and the employees' contributions are pooled and managed.

The Caisse de dépôt et placement has the mandate, trough two management committees, to manage part of those assets, so as to generate enough money to pay pensioners. There is not much difference between the three major federal pension plans and the ones in Quebec. They are essentially similar, except that Quebec has been doing for about 30 years what the federal government wants to do with the pension investment board, and we are very proud of that.

It should be noted that my presentation did not include any negative comments about the pension investment board. It is a great idea. What we disagree with is how the funds will be managed and the inadequate representation. Normally, the main stakeholders are involved in managing the funds. Our second point is that the government is once again making off with the contents of the till, like a thief.

I did not mention any names. I just said that the government was acting like a thief. This is not unparliamentary. Nothing prevents me from saying that this government is acting like a thief when it keeps helping itself to the EI fund, for instance, and its $25 billion surplus. Very few Canadians and Quebeckers agree with this approach.

[Division No. 386, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, you caught me a bit off guard. I felt that this was a debate of interest to a great many people in this parliament, especially since Bill C-78 is an important bill.

This is definitely a highly technical bill. It addresses the various pension plans administered by the federal government, as well as creating some institutions of future importance. It is a bill on which, as we have just seen, the government is very anxious to pass a gag order, or in other words to take away the right of the members of this House to speak, because it has seen how things are heating up.

It seemed just now that we were dealing with what, in criminal circles, would be called a return to the scene of the crime. When a criminal is interrupted while committing a theft, he takes off, but he always returns. And that is what this government is doing.

This bill has major consequences for the future of relations between the federal government and the employee contributors to the various pension funds.

Bill C-78 creates the public sector pension investment board. The mandate of this board will be to do exactly what we have been doing for more than 30 years in Quebec with the Caisse de dépôt et placement, which is to say managing various pension funds. There are three major funds, including the one for government employees.

The bill amends the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

The board will manage the billions of dollars in these funds annually. As I mentioned, the board's mandate resembles that of the Caisse de dépôt et de placement. Over 30 years ago we had the bright idea to set up this caisse, which now manages several tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' retirement savings.

On the strength of its more than 30-year track record, I can say that we did well to introduce this caisse, just as the government is doing well to establish a public sector pension investment board.

Where it falls apart and where we disagree violently with the government has to do with the fact that there is a danger that the main players will not be represented on the board's board of directors.

Right now, these various funds have 275,000 members. A total of 160,000 retirees and 52,000 survivors receive payments from one of the three plans. None of these will, if we look at the probabilities, be represented on the board of directors of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

It involves the management of the contributions they made as employees and making the most prudent decisions possible so these funds will grow, remain viable and provide a good pension income on their retirement. However, employees contributing currently will not be represented on the board of the pension investment board.

Neither will those who are retired, who contributed in the past. Some decisions, including those involving unforeseen surpluses generated by the various pension funds, require those who have previously contributed and who are now receiving their pension to have a say and be involved in decisions. But no, the 160,000 retired individuals who have paid in and who are responsible for past surpluses have no right in this regard. They will not be represented on the board of the pension board.

Why, we ask, will they not be represented? For the following reason. The members of the board of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board will be appointed under the following process. The President of the Treasury Board, in his usual dictatorial wisdom, establishes an advisory committee of eight persons under Bill C-78. It is him who appoints the eight members of the nominating committee. These eight people will submit to the President of the Treasury Board a list of potential candidates for appointment as directors of the pension investment board.

This nominating committee will ultimately, with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board and the governor in council, determine who will sit on the board of directors and decide how the pension plans that I mentioned earlier will be managed.

The President of the Treasury Board will appoint the chair of the nominating committee. He is the only one making that appointment. He will also directly appoint two members to represent him on the nominating committee, one of whom must be a public service employee.

He will appoint a member among people who are in receipt of a pension. He will also appoint two members after consulting with the Minister of National Defence, and two members after consulting with the Solicitor General of Canada.

These are the eight people who will make up the nominating committee. Only two of them will represent pensioners and employees making contributions.

When you are making a 50% contribution to a pension plan and the government—your employer—is contributing the other 50%, you expect equal representation from the beginning of the process.

So, two out of the eight members of the nominating committee will provide the President of Treasury Board with a list of candidates for seats on the board of a body which will administer billions of dollars of present and future employer and employee contributions.

Are we to believe that the majority of those suggested will be representatives of pensioners and workers? Logically, using simple mathematics, if these members are two out of the eight contributing to a discussion within the advisory board on a list of candidates to be submitted for positions on the Public Sector Pension Investment Board as directors, then their propositions will be in a minority from the start.

Then, once the list has been determined by the nominating committee, it is submitted to the President of Treasury Board, who will have every prerogative. He is the one who will determine which people on the nominating committee list will be submitted to the governor in council, or in other words the Cabinet, to constitute the 12 directors of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, who will have a 3-year mandate.

When the President of Treasury Board receives this list from the nominating committee, if he does not feel like having any members representing pensioners or workers contributing to the plans, he will just do what is commonly called “cherry-picking”. He will just choose from the list the people whom he wants to submit to the Cabinet for approval.

The chances of any worker or pensioner representatives being on the executive of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board are about as unlikely as the chances of skating safely on the Rideau Canal this time of year.

There is no logic in this, particularly since the committee struck by the President of Treasury Board a year or two ago, which tabled its report in December 1996, proposed, based on how things are done elsewhere, that there be equal representation of workers and pensioners and of government on the executive of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.

When the committee made this recommendation on representation, the government seemed fairly open to it, but last December its attitude changed and it decided this was no longer the way things would be. It decided to do as it does in its day-to-day management, which is to make quasi unilateral decisions, fill in the gap with unions and pensioners, act as it has usually done in its relations with unionized employees, and that is to proceed with special legislation and riot sticks. When it is not the riot stick, it is cayenne pepper. So, that is what it does.

It is a dictatorship. It is an abuse of power and the denial of the rights of contributors to be part of the decisions that concern their money.

I would remind members that 50% of the contributions in each of the three funds come from workers. The other 50% comes from the government. Could you not, when you have contributed 50% from your pay cheque, have some say when it comes time to make a decision? No.

The President of the Treasury Board, on the example of the Minister of Finance, who dips into the employment insurance fund surpluses, decided to continue the tradition of this Liberal government of royally ignoring employees and pensioners and make unilateral decisions. That is unacceptable.

According to actuarial forecasts, there will be a surplus in the three main funds that could exceed $30 billion. In Bill C-78, the government appropriates the right to use what it calls unforeseen surpluses, including that of $30 billion, as it sees fit.

No question of discussions with the unions or those who contribute to the fund, no. Unilaterally, he decided he would follow the government's practice of taking money from others, without warning, without speaking to anyone. Bill C-78 enshrines the practice by providing that the government will use the actuarial surplus as it sees fit.

For example, the government could use part of that surplus to reduce contributions or eliminate them temporarily. But on this side of the House, when we look at what happened to the employment insurance fund, we are convinced that the government will use that $30 billion in a manner that totally ignores the fact that it should benefit public service employees, and particularly pensioners and surviving spouses.

In his usual wisdom—which is selective when the time comes to present his case—the President of the Treasury Board says “Yes, but in the past, when there was a deficit in the various pension plans, it is the government that put up the money to eliminate such a deficit”. Indeed. But let him show the actual figures indicating what amount the federal government had to provide in recent years to eliminate such deficits in the pension plans. Is it $4 billion, $5 billion or $6 billion? Could the President of the Treasury Board commit to table the figures on the federal government's contribution, which is estimated to be around $5 billion?

If the federal government did indeed provide $5 billion to absorb the deficits in the three pension plans, could it be that, out of the anticipated surplus of $30 billion, there is $25 billion that do not belong to it, or that only half of that amount belong to it since the government and the workers both equally contribute to these plans?

Could it be that the President of the Treasury Board is very selective in his arguments? He is using closure precisely because he does not want to hear the whole truth.

We are prepared to consider that if, in recent years, the federal government contributed $5 billion to absorb any pension deficits related to an economic downturn, that leaves a surplus of $25 billion for which we could agree on a management structure. Decisions should be made in a collegial fashion. But the government does not know about that concept. There is an amount of $25 billion that does not belong to the government. The government may be entitled to half of it, but the other half belongs to contributors.

The consultation and management process for contributions and surpluses that is found in the legislation is a breach of democracy and it goes against what is done elsewhere.

Let us take a look at what is done elsewhere. It is not just government pensioners, federal public servants contributing to pension plans who find themselves with greater actuarial surpluses than anticipated four or five years ago. This has happened everywhere because of low interest rates, higher rates of return and, perhaps, managers' talent. The result is almost generalized surpluses that were not forecast by actuaries in almost all pension funds throughout the country.

What have others done with the unexpected surpluses? They have agreed to a collegial system with plan members, pensioners and managers. The federal government will not consider such an approach.

I will give the example of the Government of Quebec, with which I am very familiar. The Government of Quebec has two pension fund management committees, one representing unionized workers and one representing managers. There are two pension plans, one for unionized workers and one for managers. Each of these plans has a management committee.

The unions and the government are represented on each management committee in equal numbers. There is real collegiality. It is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Last December, the way the President of the Treasury Board was talking, it sounded as though the government had seen the light, had remembered what democracy was and how to behave in a civilized manner, and would introduce a structure in which contributors and management would have equal representation. But no.

In Quebec, there is a collegial approach to deciding how surpluses are handled. Decisions are taken as well. This committee, composed of equal numbers of unionized workers and representatives of the Government of Quebec, also decides what will be done with surpluses and what management directions should be taken. In co-operation with the Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec, it decides on the best growth vehicles for contributions and for part of the surplus of workers and managers.

It would have been so easy to get it right for once. All the elements were there. But instead this government's cynicism has prevailed. This government is thick. I have said so often, but not often enough, in my opinion. The government is close-minded. We try to get it to understand some common sense, we try to tell it that it might be a good idea at some point to look calmly at the possibility of collaboration with the public servants and public service pensioners, rather than confrontation. But with the government, it is always confrontation.

It is trampling on the most fundamental right, a minimal right I would call it, to have representation. It makes no sense. Contributors to a fund would like to take part in the decisions on how that fund is managed, particularly since later on, depending on what decisions are made, and on whether or not there is contributor participation, they are the ones who will benefit, or not benefit, from the administrators' decisions. Here we are faced with a structure in which contributors are completely pushed aside. This is not normal.

As members know, here is how things work elsewhere when there is a surplus: a joint decision is made on what to do with the unexpected surplus. Judging by a sampling of some thirty funds over the past three or four decades, often it has been agreed to improve the plan and its benefits, and also to improve survivor's benefits. Often, survivor benefits are less than the worker's pension was during his or her lifetime.

The plan has been improved, and now even includes certain provisions for part time workers, but it has always moved in the direction of improving people's lot. This government's only motivation is the general improvement of the state of the surpluses, with the Minister of Finance shamelessly dipping into surpluses in the employment insurance fund.

The President of the Treasury Board has just got into the habit, unless the two are one and the same, unless the Minister of Finance is ordering the President of the Treasury Board, as the future leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, who is preparing his race for the leadership and who wants an extraordinary performance to be able to announce this race where he succeeded while others failed spectacularly. But he is doing this on the backs of others. Everyone is going to remember that.

[The Francophonie, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, in Saint-Hyacinthe, the world francophone community experienced an unparalleled and unique moment. Over 2,000 young francophones from some 40 countries and every continent around the world met to celebrate the Grande Fête de la jeunesse, de la culture et du français.

“Vivre le monde de la francophonie” was an incredible success. Just imagine bringing over 2,000 young people together in a huge event.

The exploit is primarily the handiwork of Gaston Vachon of the Saint-Hyacinthe school board, who not only set up a flawless organization to look out for the young people, but gave them the gift of an experience they will never forget.

The wrapping of this superb gift took the form of the national grand prize for the best Internet site awarded to Marie-Josée Tôth, who was in charge of the Internet site created for this event. The prize was awarded by the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française.

I offer my heartiest congratulations to Ms. Tôth and Mr. Vachon and to the hundreds of volunteers who contributed directly or indirectly to the extraordinary success of this event.

[Committees Of The House, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we wish to indicate that the Bloc Quebecois has tabled a dissenting opinion to the final report of the finance committee concerning the Mackay report.

We feel it lacks precision where Canadian financial services in support of the disadvantaged are concerned, as well as not going far enough. We also consider it an injustice toward provincially chartered insurance companies in Quebec, which cannot at present acquire blocks of insurance from federally chartered companies, and this is an injustice which must be remedied promptly.

Unfortunately, the dissenting opinion does not allow us to remedy that injustice in such a way as to serve the interests of Quebec.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I move:

That Bill C-76, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 42 on page 7 and lines 1 to 7 on page 8 with the following:

“20. (1) The President of the Privy Concil shall, after the coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator-arbitrator and refer to the mediator-arbitrator all matters that, at the time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the parties in relation to the conclusion of a new collective agreement.

(2) The mediator-arbitrator shall, within ninety days after being appointed, a ) endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to in subsection (1) and to bring about an agreement between the parties on these matters; b ) if the mediator-arbitrator is unable to do so, hear the parties on the matter, arbitrate the matter and render a decision; c ) ensure that any agreement or decision referred to in paragraph ( a ) or ( b ) is in appropriate contractual language so as to allow its incorporation into the collective agreement; and d ) report to the President of the Privy Council on the resolution of all such matter.

(2.1) The mediator-arbitrator has, with any modifications that the circumstances require, a ) for the purposes of the mediation referred to in paragraph (2)( a ), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under section 84 of the Canada Labour Code ; and b ) for the purposes of the arbitration referred to in paragraph (2)( b ), all the powers and duties of an arbitrator under sections 60 and 61 of that Act.

(2.2) The time during which the mediator-arbitrator may perform the duties and exercise the powers under this section may be extented by the President of the Privy Council or by mutual consent of the employer and the bargaining agent.

(2.3) As of the day that the mediator-arbitrator reports to the President of the Privy Council under paragraph (2)( d ), the collective agreement shall be deemed to be amended by the incorporation into it of a ) any agreement resolving the matters in dispute between the employer and the union arrived at before, of pursuant to, mediation; and b ) any decision of the mediator-arbitrator in respect of any matters that were arbitrated.

(3) The terms and conditions prescribed under subsections (1) to (2.3) constitute a new”

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, can the President of Treasury Board tell us about what he has criticized as a slow-down in the processing of income tax returns?

Can he give us figures? He made it sound terribly serious, whereas according to our information everything is going fine as far as processing returns is concerned.

Is there not something of a discrepancy between what the President of Treasury Board has announced as a major problem that required him to intervene by means of special legislation, and the reality?