Steve Mahoney

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

I do not think it should be turned over to management either. This is an opportunity to work together on this fund and it makes absolute sense.

The question of managing ongoing surpluses is critically important as is the whole issue of how we determine over a 15 year period what is to be done in relationship to any surplus that might amount. We do not need to be going through this every 15 years. This is causing some stress, some anxiety.

I understand the labour position. I would expect nothing less than for labour to stand through its representatives in the House and fight on the basis that it thinks this is its money and it should have control of it. I understand that. I just do not agree with it. Neither does the government agree with it.

I do not understand the position of the official opposition, however, that would continually simply take a position that is contrary. Somehow Reform members think every day when they get up in the morning that whatever they do we will disagree with and take a contrary position.

This is responsible legislation. It is fair to the taxpayer. It is fair to pensioners that will need this pension for their future protection.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

No, it is not complex. It is pretty straightforward. I would submit the people of Canada have signed the bargaining agreements and employ these individuals. It is the Government of Canada representing the people of Canada that is ultimately responsible for it.

The issue of the surplus is key just because of the size of it, it being a $30 billion impact. If I thought for one minute we would take the $30 billion out of this fund and simply spread it around and spend it, that would be irresponsible. That is not what we are talking about. This is an unprecedented opportunity for the government to show leadership in fiscal responsibility again.

It would follow on the last budget and the one before and the takeover in 1993 when the government put the country of Canada, along with the tremendous help and sacrifices of Canadians, on the route to fiscal responsibility by eliminating the deficit and starting to pay down the debt.

They can say all they want about disagreeing with government policies. They can say all they want about criticizing the direction or philosophy of the government. They cannot dispute that since 1993 the overdraft in the country has been eliminated and the debt is starting to be paid down.

While it is an important part of the whole issue surrounding these pension amendments, the primary purpose is to establish something that once again members opposite, notably the New Democrats and the Reform, should be supporting, that is a public sector pension investment board.

An argument has gone on and on at various levels of government about who will control the money. Who will make the decision about where it is to be invested and how much it returns? This is an absolute breath of fresh air because the board will operate at arm's length from the government, something I would have thought we would have heard cheers about from members opposite.

It will be arm's length from employees and pensioners. No member of parliament will be allowed to sit on it. That is the way it should be. There should be no conflicts or perceived conflicts in the establishment of such a board. There will be 12 qualified directors to be appointed by the government. I do not know who else would appoint them.

Ultimately at the end of the day it is the government that is responsible, that is liable for anything which goes wrong, and there is no question it is the government's responsibility to ensure that there are 12 competent, highly qualified individuals on that board.

It will require quarterly or annual financial statements to be provided to the ministers responsible for the funds. An annual report will be tabled in the House, I say to the chair of the public accounts committee, which is something he is always calling for. There will be an opportunity to debate that report. We can refer it to committee. There is no question the accountability is there.

I mention particularly for members of the New Democratic Party mandatory advisory committees for each of the three major plans with at least half the committee members to be employees and pensioners shall be established.

That is saying there is an opportunity for co-management, an opportunity for input. I am sure the New Democrats would rather turn it over unilaterally to the union. I understand that position. That would be once again consistent with the philosophy of that party, but that is not the position the government wishes to take.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

The member asks whether they said that. How else would we interpret the fact that I have heard members of the official opposition say that the surplus moneys should be left in surplus and simply allowed to grow?

Somewhere the NDP talks about the potential growth going to $100 billion. Let us turn around and extrapolate it. We leave the $30 billion in the account as members opposite are suggesting. That account then grows to $100 billion as a result of a contribution agreement that is 70:30. Benefits are being paid out. Obligations are being made. Pensioners are secure. We should leave $100 billion in some kind of surplus savings account while taxpayers on the other side of the argument struggle with the burden of carrying a $550 billion or $560 billion debt? It makes no sense whatsoever.

It is time all of us in this place, regardless of political stripe, agreed with the taxpayers who say to me that we should pay down the debt. Yes, they want tax relief, but they want debt reduction. The reason they want debt reduction is that they know that debt will fall on the shoulders and come out of the wallets of their kids and their grand kids. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

They can point fingers if they want and say that the reason the debt is so high is this or that government. We could blame all kinds of people and parties, most of them not in this place, for the size of that debt.

The reality is that society has changed. Our country has matured. It is my view that we have matured to the point where we recognize something which I think was recognized in many municipalities around the country in the late seventies, that we cannot simply continue to borrow and mortgage the future.

That is what this is all about. I find it a rather incongruous position for the opposition party to stand in this place and say we should leave it alone, ignore it, pretend it is not there and save it for a rainy day.

This brings me to another point. Whether it be an employment insurance fund or a superannuation fund for the RCMP or for anybody involved in the public service, who ultimately is responsible to ensure that the pension commitments are made?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, all I need is a bit of time to do that. I can see the link quite clearly. I heard the member who just rose on a point of order stand here and complain about closure. I do not know how that had anything to do with this bill.

What it had to with was the attempt by the opposition to delay this parliament, to stop us from having the opportunity to speak about this bill. That is exactly what it was about. Now we face the threat from the House leader who came halfway across the floor to say “You guys have had it now. We are going to keep on delaying”.

Instead of getting on with the issue of whose surplus it is, instead of debating with my hon. friend who chairs the public accounts committee and does a commendable job at it, instead of getting to refute some of the points the member makes, we wind up wasting time. It is now five o'clock and question period was over at three o'clock. So what do we do. We kill the better part of two hours in this place because the members opposite simply want to stand up in an obstreperous manner to try to delay the proceedings of parliament with nothing whatsoever to be gained on the bill involved.

The question here is, whose surplus is it anyway? Let us look at the facts. We have a collective agreement. While I find the position of the Reform Party, in the usual fashion, somewhat off the wall, I want to at least give some credit to the NDP critic, the member for Winnipeg Centre. Even though I do not agree with the position the member is taking on this, at least the NDP is being consistent on this issue.

I will read from Hansard the NDP's view. This came from the member for Winnipeg Centre: “It is a basic tenet of the trade union movement that all pension surpluses are the sole property of the employee. They are not the employers' money to use as they see fit. They are deferred wages. It is our money speaking on behalf of working people”. That has long been a position of the New Democratic Party. That is absolutely clear. Its stated philosophy or goal in life is to stand up in its own way and defend what it sees as the rights of the union.

Then we get the other extreme that comes from members of the Reform Party. They say it is the position of the official opposition that these surpluses belong to neither the government nor outright to the unions. It is the taxpayers who are the forgotten partner in this debate.

We have pretty extreme positions dealing with an issue. Interestingly enough it is easy to take extreme positions when they sit in opposition and are accountable to no one. It is up to the government then to make a decision as to what is fair.

We have a pension fund where contributions have been made by the employees and the employers alike at a ratio of 70% by the employer, which happens to be the taxpayer, and 30% by the employee.

Would it not make sense, if we believe in the position of the Reform Party that the taxpayers are the forgotten elements, to use the surplus that has built up as a result of a 70% contribution over many years to pay down the debt? I find it astounding that members opposite could stand in their places, as I think the previous speaker said, and say that $30 billion is only a small amount.

The government has been successful in eliminating a $42 billion deficit-overdraft. For the first time in over 40 years it has actually put a dent in the debt of the country by some $20 billion. Now we have an opportunity staring us in the face to further reduce the national debt by $30 billion.

I understand where the NDP is coming from. It is fighting for its brothers and sisters in the union. It is consistent. However I cannot understand where the official opposition is coming from when it stands and says that we should leave it alone, not touch it. It does not belong to the union. It does not belong to the government. Somehow it belongs to taxpayers but we are to leave it alone and not give it to the taxpayers.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

It could be the world. You never know. I am not sure of the European, Asian or African experience, but it is very strong.

It owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, who are about to go on and defeat Philadelphia this evening, hopefully. It has amazing investments that are making wonderful returns for its members.

For whose benefit? That is what we hear in this place from members opposite. Who is going to benefit from these changes? They are trying to suggest that this is simply for the benefit of the Liberal Party or the Liberal government. That is absolute nonsense.

This is for the benefit of all Canadians and in my view, the changes here are for the benefit of those who will draw on that pension. This will ensure that that pension is sustainable for many years to come for the tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of pensioners who will draw upon it.

I wish to point out something which I find rather interesting. We went through the exercise of having a vote in this place. We voted on a motion to adjourn the debate. I am sure the public who were watching were somewhat confused. Why would we be voting on a motion to adjourn the debate and what debate were we adjourning?

The House leader for the official opposition put forward a motion on debate that we should have televised coverage of every committee operated from this place. On the surface that would seem to make sense. Why would we not want to have all the debates open to the public and televised? The reality is, and the reason I raise this point is that instead of getting on with the debate on a very important issue such as this bill and the changes to the pension act, what we got was a filibuster that is meant to do nothing more than put a wrench in the wheels of government. It is not substantive.

The member opposite knows full well that there are dozens of committee rooms throughout the parliamentary precincts. The rooms are in various buildings, across the street in the Wellington building, in West Block, East Block and Centre Block. They are all over the place. If we were to attempt—

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

The hon. member says that was a great government.

The experience we had there would be rather enlightening to members opposite, were they to look at the impact. In reality we had one pension in a deficit and another in a huge surplus. There were arguments about whether or not the contributions being made by the teachers were sufficient or fair in light of contributions being made by other employees in the public sector, and indeed in the private sector.

I can say that people in the private sector would be delighted to have a pension plan similar to the one we are discussing today and certainly similar to the one the teachers enjoyed and still enjoy in Ontario.

I can see that we are changing the guard. I should clarify for the Chair that I was told by the whip's desk that I should be discussing this for a full 20 minutes, as opposed to sharing my time.

In any event, the results of that legislative change in the parliament of Ontario were that we took a teachers pension fund that was in one sense in some jeopardy and by increasing the contributions and by taking the surplus into proper use, we were able to create one of the strongest pension funds in all of Canada, perhaps even all of North America. In fact, look at what it owns.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today. It is déja vu all over again for me, having gone through the experience of merging some teachers pension funds in the province of Ontario when I was in that legislature and arguing whether or not the government of the day, the David Peterson government, had the authority to merge pensions.

[Meadowvale Theatre, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, April 1 marked the 10th anniversary of Mississauga's Meadowvale Theatre. Since opening its doors on April 1, 1989, Meadowvale Theatre has hosted nearly 750,000 artists, technicians and audience members.

From professional theatre productions to concerts, seminars and conventions, classes in mime, puppetry and circus crafts, co-op programs in technical theatre and theatre management, the Meadowvale Theatre provides a tremendous variety of events for my community.

I want to congratulate the Meadowvale Theatre of Mississauga as it celebrates its 10th anniversary. I also want to thank all of those people who have worked and volunteered to make it so successful.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will accept the fact that I have stood from time to time in this place and thrown castigations at the opposition parties. I did not do that in this speech, precisely for the reason that the hon. member mentions. This is much too serious an issue for us to be worrying about partisan shots at one another. We can live to fight another day on those issues, and I am sure we will.

I even quoted the Leader of the Opposition in a positive light from Hansard and congratulated him for his statement. I quoted the New Democratic member for Halifax West. I congratulated the Bloc for using an opposition day in what I view to be an appropriate manner.

This is much too serious an issue for us to be politicizing it and taking cheap shots at one another. I certainly did not do that and have no intention of doing that.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the sentiment, the principle or the idea that the Canadian parliament should vote on matters of national and international interest is valid. However the practical reality of having a vote and having some kind of potential for the opposition perhaps to use it for political statements, or for an opportunity to try to somehow embarrass the government, is the wrong kind of issue to do that with.

The member knows that what they are doing is absolutely appropriate. They are putting forward a motion that will generate a vote on an opposition day so that we all have the opportunity to stand in the House and put our position forward as to whether or not we support the government on the actions that are being taken.

I think we have to be careful and we have to depoliticize as much as possible the issue of whether or not ground troops are sent in. I pray to God that will not have to happen, but I fear that looking at the situation that it might well have to happen. We have to give them flexibility and the ability to deal with that at the military level.