1992-06-17

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, proposals by the Ontario government would give counties and regions authority over woodlots greater than 2.5 acres and other municipalities the power to control individual shade trees, windbreaks and fence rows.
These proposed changes could have a serious impact on private landowners' rights and should be of concern to anyone who has a tree growing on his or her property.
Ontario is pushing responsibility on to municipalities while at the same time allowing clear cutting on its own Crown lands. My constituents are tired of too much government and this proposed legislation promises to be a nightmare of permits, regulation, and enforcement; all to the detriment of the taxpayer.
Canadians love the privileges that come with freedom, peace, private property and the pursuit of the work ethic.
At this sensitive time in our country's history, I urge members of Parliament to work to find ways to support and encourage law abiding, environmentally conscious private citizens rather than targeting them with restrictive and expensive laws which have not worked in eastern Europe or elsewhere.


MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservative government is interfering with multicultural organizations instead of co-operating with them.

The minister is trying to undermine the World Sikh Organization by funding to the tune of $130,000 the National Alliance of Canadian Sikhs.
The World Sikh Organization has represented Sikhs without any grants or subsidies from the government, yet the minister has the nerve to proclaim the alliance as the principal organization representing Sikhs.
It is time the government stopped interfering in the internal matters of ethnocultural communities and the Sikh community specifically. The role of multicultural-ism and citizenship should be the building of bridges and not barriers.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to a measure taken by our government to support Montreal's economic development over the next few years. I do so on behalf of the members of the Montreal caucus I have the honour to chair.
Monday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development, announced that $150 million would be allocated by the government to support projects in sectors that would afford the best prospects for Montreal.
This initiative by our government is well suited to the partnership that exists today between government and

June 17, 1992
the private sector and which is aimed at making Montreal a world class industrial and technological centre.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I have the firm conviction that with this injection of $150 million Montreal will be able to further enhance its role as a centre of excellence for a variety of disciplines.
I would like to recall the work done by members of the Montreal caucus who made this initiative a success and, again, our thanks to the minister.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, three days ago the national police of El Salvador kidnapped Jose Adolfo Rodas Rivera without a judicial order and are holding him in police headquarters, likely torturing him.
Rodas is a leader in the Christian Committee for the Displaced People, the group that has promoted the peaceful return of peasant families to war-tom areas of El Salvador.
The police are the force of the old military elite trying to block the peaceful return of democracy to El Salvador. With continuing United States' money and arms, El Salvador continues to drive some people to become refugees
Therefore, this is no time for Canada to begin dismantling our laws for giving shelter to refugees. We must not classify El Salvador as a safe country from which no real refugees come. We must not return Salvadorans to the United States without first examining their refugee claims, as Bill C-86 would allow us to do.
Instead, Canada should call on El Salvador to release Rodas unharmed, and on the United States to cease arming the Salvadoran security forces.
 *


CANADA 125 CELEBRATIONS
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House and my
colleagues an important event that will be held in the town of Lacombe in my riding on July 1, 1992.
In honour of Canada's 125th birthday and in memory of Roland B. Michener, late Governor General of Canada, who was bom in Lacombe, Alberta, the town has requested the donation of trees from communities across Canada as a living tribute. They hope to plant 125 trees in Michener Park, each one of which will have the name of the donating municipality engraved on a plaque. It is hoped by this to symbolically bring Canada together.
I would like to congratulate the town of Lacombe and all the constituents involved for their enthusiasm, dedication, and for this special way of celebrating Canada's 125th anniversary.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: In my riding, the St. Germain School has started a unique project on Canadian unity. Youngsters in the fifth grade studied present day Canada and asked a number of questions which I will quote here.
(1) Will Canada separate? (2) What will happen in that case? (3) What can we, as students, do to prevent this from happening?
What did they recommend? I will read it to you:
We want to do something for Canadian unity, and we have a message: A puzzle is worthless if there is a piece missing! We made a big flag which was signed by more than 600 people at school. There is a message on the flag: Long live a united Canada! Let's talk. Let's communicate.

The message is clear. It is not unlike the others I received from College Louis-Riel when they held a citizenship court, or from H. S. Paul and Samuel Burland schools, including the many hundreds of other students when they held their Canada 125 celebrations: "Let's keep our country together by talking to each other".
Merci, thank you to all of our young people.
June 17, 1992


THE LATE JEAN-CLAUDE LEBEL
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the sudden passing of a senior federal official.
Yesterday, we were told about the death of Mr. Jean-Claude Lebel, who for the past three years had been deputy minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, of which he was both the principal artisan and leading light.
He will be remembered by his employees, his federal and Quebec counterparts and his many co-workers and friends, not only as a dedicated and tireless public servant but also as an ardent defender of regional development in Quebec.
Speaking on behalf of all members of the Quebec Conservative caucus and on behalf of the members of this House, I wish to offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Lebel's family.


BILL C-80
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise Canadians that this government is ignoring the democratic process by rushing Bill C-80 through committee stage, denying experts in the field who unanimously oppose this legislation an opportunity to appear before the committee.
This bill hammers the last nail in the coffin of universality and will profoundly affect the lives of poor children. Yet the groups and individuals who work on the front lines dealing with these children are being denied the chance to say how the bill affects them.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that she does not see the need for social policy groups to present briefs to the committee because the bill is essentially a tax bill. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the minister responsible for children, is not slated to appear.
When will the government stop looking to expensive tax lawyers for answers and start listening to what hungry children and advocates are saying?
I urge members of the government side to keep the debate open, even though they might not want to hear what the experts are going to say, and allow witnesses the time they need to present briefs to the committee. When is the government going to listen to the ruinous effects its policies are having on Canada's children?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Bernard Valcourt, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, for bringing some common sense to our immigration system. In my riding, in town hall meetings, in my mail and in personal interventions, constituents of Halton-Peel have been asking for a system that is fair, that costs less to run for taxpayers, and yet maintains the humanitarian reputation of Canada.
Among the much-needed reforms we now see is a guarantee that refugees coming to this country will be legitimate. Speedy family reunification for immigrants allowed into Canada, encouraging immigrants to come here who have the skill and capital that Canada needs, and positioning those immigrants in the geographic areas where they are needed in this country and finally, tough new rules to keep criminals and terrorists out of Canada.
These are simple requests from the people of my riding and I would like to thank the minister for listening. As we all know, the government that listens is the government that lasts.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 1992 I placed a question on the Order Paper related to projects funded by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and requested a response within 45 days.
Today is the 72nd day since I made my request and I have not yet received a response.

S. ft 31
People throughout my riding and the rest of Atlantic Canada have the right to know what projects ACOA has funded. People want to know what the agency is doing with their tax dollars.
With unemployment in Prince Edward Island over 18 per cent, it is hard to see how ACOA is helping Prince Edward Island.
I call upon the minister responsible for ACOA to shed some light on the situation and answer my question.


VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make the House and all Canadians aware of the courageous effort of 13-year-old Virginie Lariviere following her young sister's violent death. Virginie has undertaken to have a million Canadians sign a petition to reduce violence on television.
As more and more studies show a connection between violence on television and violence in our society, it is our duty to act and ensure that our regulations reflect the kind of society we want.
In the wake of her sister Marie-Eve's horrible death, Virginie Lariviere gives us a lesson in courage, humani-tarianism and dedication that should inspire us all.
I therefore ask for the support and involvement of all hon. members to help distribute Virginie Lariviere's petition throughout the country and to work to reduce violence on television and violence in all its forms.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons unanimously declared that the federal government should reinstate the Court Challenges Program, which was abolished in the most recent federal budget.
The Court Challenges Program, which is to end in September 1992, enables disadvantaged groups to have their cases heard in court. The committee notes that
without this program access to the recourses provided in the Charter will no doubt be limited to groups and individuals that are already favoured financially and politically.
The government must recognize its responsibility to this country's minorities, like the French-speaking minorities, and restore the Court Challenges Program which has proven to be a fundamental tool for recognizing the rights of francophone and Acadian communities.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding of Sarnia-Lambton will applaud the government's proposed changes to the Immigration Act. My constituents will recognize that the changes respond to the realities of the 1990s and provide the government with tools to maintain the integrity of the system.
My constituents will welcome the news of proposed measures which will streamline the refugee system and provide better service, curtail the abuse of immigration and refugee systems, including better controls at the border, as well as impose time limits and standard processing time to help eliminate the backlogs.
At the same time, I know they will also applaud the government's renewed commitment to reunite families, protect refugees and promote economic development.
Finally, I know my constituents will appreciate a reformed and revitalized immigration program which is fair, balanced and effective, a program designed to best serve their interests.


HENRIETTE HADDAD
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, seven years ago, Madame Henriette Haddad disappeared in the streets of Beirut.
Today, for the first time, there is encouraging news suggesting that Henriette Haddad may indeed be alive. Her family and friends have worked tirelessly for her release over the years and have often expressed their frustration at the lack of support of their government.
June 17, 1992

Today Angeline Fournier, co-chairman of the committee to free Henriette Haddad, said that a high official of the Iranian embassy in Paris had told them the fundamentalist Iranian group was prepared to release her on humanitarian grounds. This group is the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
As Madame Fournier said, this is the opening of the door for the first time. They are calling upon the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to provide help in this very delicate matter.
I would urge the government to provide full assistance to the family and friends so that very soon Henriette Haddad will indeed return home to Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Provincial health ministers are meeting in Ottawa with their federal counterpart to discuss the increasing costs of our health care system and looking for ways to deal with this problem. We are very worried at this point, because Canadians know the health care system we have in this country is the best in the world. They are afraid that provincial governments want to introduce user fees which will have a very negative impact, especially on the poorest members of our society.
I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give Canadians assurances that our national health care system will remain universal and free for all Canadians and especially for the neediest members of our society.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the federal government's position on health care has been the same ever since the Canada Health Act was passed.
Oral Questions
Last September in Winnipeg, at a meeting of all Canadian health ministers, the first principle to be reconfirmed by all provinces was the guarantee that the five main criteria-universality, accessibility, portability, and so forth-would be maintained. The federal government's position has not changed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister.
I am glad to hear the minister say the government's position has not changed, but will the government make the necessary arrangements to ensure the provinces will not have to change the system?
As a result of the 1990 and 1991 budgets, the Minister of Finance has created a situation where, in a matter of just a few years, the provinces will no longer receive direct payments from the government for health care. Could the minister inform the House that the government will review this situation in order to keep in place the necessary mechanisms to maintain the integrity of our health system by continuing transfer payments to the provinces, as well as transfers of tax points?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Leader of the Opposition that cash payments in the form of tax points were requested by the provinces when he was a member of the government, if I am not mistaken.
However, in September the provinces also admitted that considering the $60 billion invested in the health care system in this country, which makes it the costliest public health care system in the world, it was agreed that in fact it was not a problem of resources but rather of better managing the funds available.
Last night, the Minister of Finance and I met HEAL, a health care lobby group. They too agreed that the problem with the health care system in Canada is not, basically, a resource problem. The money is there-$60 billion-so it is more a matter of management. The provinces, from New Brunswick to Ontario and from Newfoundland to British Columbia, have on the whole taken on a number of responsibilities, which leads us to believe that we are on the right track. Together with the

June 17, 1992
Oral Questions
provinces, we are trying to maintain-as the Leader of the Opposition said, and I agree with him-the main criteria for the system, with the knowledge that the capacity to finance the system is there, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. In the discussions he is having with the provinces at this moment, will the minister tell them very clearly that there is absolutely no possibility in Canada that we will go for user fees in medicare for Canadians and that hospitals in Canada are for sick people, not for rich people and that this very important regime will remain as it is for the benefit of all Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, all the provinces in light of the resources we provide are subjected to the Canada Health Act which directly forbids any province charging what we call a user fee. There is no problem at that level. We would have to amend the legislation to be able to do that.
To the credit of the provinces also, we have to say they are trying to do a lot, trying to manage the resources they have in spite of increasing costs. It increased during the eighties about 12 per cent, which is too much for the capacity we have to pay today.
We give the guarantee that the law will not be amended, that we will keep it. At the same time, Canadians have to know, and I think they share this view, that all efforts have to be made to protect the best system in the world, but within their capacity they have to pay for it.


BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
This week's report on breast cancer highlights a social problem of near epidemic proportions. Last year, this government gave the Medical Research Council $849,000 and only $189,000 of that money went to direct research for breast cancer.
Will the minister and this government recognize that funding for this research is a matter of urgency and provide the recommended funding now that is recommended in this report?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to the same kind of question to my friend from British Columbia yesterday.
I said we definitely have to look at all the questions of research on cancer and breast cancer in a particular way. I repeat what I said yesterday. I believe that all those issues dealing with women and health have been seen too many times from a man's perspective.
Having said that, the hon. member has to know, and it is easy to know, that funding for breast cancer is not predetermined. We can fund $3 million, $4 million or $5 million now if the project submitted to NHRDP and the Medical Research Council has the quality to warrant funding. Yes, I am ready to give more money and to at least consider the possibility if it can be confirmed that any project dealing with breast cancer has been turned down because of a problem with money.
It never happened to my knowledge or to the knowledge of the Medical Research Council.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, yes, I heard the minister's comments yesterday. If you ask any pure scientist, $189,000 is not enough money.
There are five women whom I know in the Pratt family, two with breast cancer and three of them very high risk. We know that cancer runs in families. We know that there is a shortage of radiation technologists. We know there is a shortage of radiation equipment. We know there is not enough research money and this is a women's issue.
Will the minister indicate to this House what this government's action plan is going to be to deal with this very serious situation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, I think that I confirmed twice yesterday and again today that I am ready to listen and look at what we can do. Immediately I see a kind of slippage of the member when she says we have to provide more equipment. She knows that at that level the provinces have full responsibility and the federal level cannot go to the province of Ontario and say it will supply equipment.
Once again, I repeat what I said, we have to be more sensitive to breast cancer particularly. I am ready to look at the full report provided yesterday and to do my best. We have not predetermined money. Maybe $800,000 is not enough, but it has not been determined by the department or by the Medical Research Council. It is based on projects submitted by researchers. Maybe we
June 17, 1992

should support more research, particularly among women, and maybe it would help to supply more money.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the minister of health.
The joint meeting of the federal-provincial ministers of health and finance is extremely important for the survival of our national medicare program. It is no secret that the minister's colleagues are primarily concerned about the unilateral federal withdrawal from the cost-shared partnership in financing health care.
Does the minister agree with the statement by the Newfoundland minister of health, Chris Decker, that the federal government cannot afford a universal health care system or, in the words of Mr. Decker: "They talk about it but they cannot deliver".
What has happened to the federal government's commitment and obligations under medicare to all Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong when he says that the provinces are particularly upset by the unilateral withdrawal of resources.
If he looks at information that we released in September in Winnipeg, all the provinces, except Quebec because it was not there, but including British Columbia agreed at the time that the problem is not a question of money. Once again, it is the most expensive public system in the world. We have to use the resources we have. In that respect we work with the provinces and continue to do that in light of the fact that we can improve the management and the system and keep the best system in the world.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
The minister of health for B.C. said: "I think medicare is being threatened and largely responsible are the federal cuts in transfer payments to the provinces". The National Council on Welfare, the government's own advisory group, has calculated that the cuts to the federal financing formula for health will amount to more than $60 billion by the year 2000.
Oral Questions
Can the minister tell the House what kind of a health care system will result from these unilateral cuts? Will it be a patchwork with different standards in each province, including user fees, higher premiums, extra billing by doctors or a two-tiered U.S. style health care system?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have to tell the member that there were no cuts. There were reductions in the way we transfer payments. Of course, that is the usual language of the NDP and we are used to that. I would appreciate having the same kind of interesting question I got from the member for Nepean.
I repeat, $60 billion in the health care system in Canada is a lot of money. It is the most expensive in the world. We are trying to work within those resources. I can say that the provinces are encouraged to do that. I will continue to work with the provinces which want to work in that respect.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.
Can the minister explain how medicare can still be considered a cost-shared program when the federal share has declined from 50 per cent in 1980 under successive Liberal and Tory governments to 31 per cent that it is today? How much lower will the federal share shrink in the remaining three years of the present freeze? Will it be 25 per cent, 20 per cent, 15 per cent or even lower?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that maybe the direct transfer payments have been reduced, but the tax points have increased since 1982-83, which means that we give more money today than we gave 10 years ago.
The meeting tonight between the ministers of finance and the ministers of health will not be to say we will put in a billion dollars more. We will be there to determine how we can keep the system working the way it does, keeping in mind that we have to protect the system in light of the fact that we have reduced resources at the federal level. The ministers agree with that. They agreed last September and they will continue to agree.

June 17, 1992
Oral Questions
If we put in more money as the member wants, we would just have the same problem we face today because we inherited a $500 billion debt. Fortunately the NDP is not there or it would be $1,000 billion.


REFUGEES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled his voluminous immigration amendments which included extensive management and enforcement measures but paid little attention to humanitarian concerns.
Since the minister had the opportunity, why did he not provide an appeal on the merits for refugees whose applications have been rejected, as recommended by many NGOs, churches and the legal community?
The Refugee Board is not perfect, and without an appeal process the system is seriously flawed. Now is the time for an appeal process.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite should read the bill carefully and he would see that in subsections 114(2), (6) and (5) we seek the authority to apply selection criteria.
The bill tabled by my colleague responsible for employment and immigration maintains Canada's humanitarian tradition as it pertains to economic requirements and employment that we must use in the immigration model. I wish to assure this House again that we will continue to respect refugee claims.
The bill tabled yesterday simply adapts the act to the realities of 1992 so that we can have a fair, equitable and efficient system.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not even answer my question. I
was asking about an appeal on the merits process. She did not address that question.

As an alternative, why did the Minister of Employment and Immigration not specify and provide objective criteria for admitting refugees on humanitarian grounds? The minister almost eliminated this useful provision that allowed the most deserving cases to appeal. Will the minister or the government consider amendments to the bill to make better use of this provision and provide a fairer appeal process?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made to the bill yesterday-or rather the suggested amendments, I should say, because we will have an opportunity through the parliamentary process to express our point of view-make procedures into regulations. So regulations rather than procedures will make it possible for applicants to appeal using the regular process. In any case, everyone in Canada will be able to exercise their right to appeal and each case will be heard on its merits.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last night we saw the spectacle on national television of B.C. vegetable producers ploughing down their crops because United States farmers are dumping low priced, low value vegetables into the Canadian market.
We know that the government in the free trade negotiation gave up the right to have a seasonal tariff. I want to ask the minister what the government is going to do. What action is going to be taken to keep these producers in business?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend did not deliberately misinform the House.
June 17, 1992

We have a snap-back provision that was negotiated in the trade agreement between Canada and the United States which has been used by the government when necessary.
The hon. member should be aware that the association which represents these producers requested a hearing be held into the dumping allegations. They have been working with the Department of National Revenue to assemble that information. The Department of National Revenue is co-operating in presenting this case. We have worked hand in hand with our sister departments and we will work with the producers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows, as every producer across this country knows, that the snap-back provision is absolutely useless. It just does not protect the industry.
The Department of National Revenue published a press release last week saying it would be making a determination in 90 days. That is simply unacceptable. The crops will all be ploughed down within 90 days.
Will the government bring in a determination for an anti-dumping duty by June 23 when the House rises? Will the minister give that kind of commitment to those producers today?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as beneficial as that might appear, the hon. member would be the first to complain to our trading partners if they attempted to run roughshod over a process that was established to allow it to take place.
Those critics of doom and gloom who identified that the free trade agreement would cause the destruction of agriculture have to recognize fact. The fact is that the number of farms has reduced at a lower rate in the last five years in Canada than any time since 1941.
Another thing the hon. member and other colleagues should know is that agricultural food exports to the United States since the free trade agreement have increased 29 per cent, almost 10 per cent a year. The hon. member should recognize that.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Both the Nova Scotia government order establishing the inquiry into the Westray mine disaster and the provincial statute authorizing the order specifically restricts the inquiry to matters, and I quote, "in relation to which the legislature may make laws".
In other words, every aspect of the disaster within federal jurisdiction, such things as federal government investigations and safety assessments or regional development funding or cabinet assessment, is beyond the scope of the Nova Scotia inquiry.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that all the government's assurances for the last month that no federal inquiry was needed were in fact completely incorrect, that the Nova Scotia inquiry cannot inquire into strictly federal actions and responsibilities in the disaster?


An hon. member:: He should go to Hollywood. The walk would do him good.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Ross Harvey: That is not entirely comforting, Mr. Speaker, so I would ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister.
The inquiry commissioner, Justice Richard, himself said yesterday when talking about the huge volume of documents his inquiry already had to review:
I have no jurisdiction as a provincial inquiry over documents
outside the province.
The justice himself recognizes the restrictions on his inquiry.
Will the government now stop trying to hide its own actions and responsibilities behind a provincial inquiry which cannot investigate them and call a federal inquiry which can?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true the judge did say that he did not have jurisdiction over documents issuing from a federal jurisdiction, but we sent them to him anyway.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a matter of paramount importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: the state of the fishery.

June 17, 1992
Oral Questions
Yesterday in St. Anthony, Newfoundland nearly 1,000 men and women marched and demonstrated, calling upon governments and calling upon politicians of every stripe to acknowledge and to deal constructively with the crisis in the fishery. These people have been without income since May 15 and have no prospect of future income in the face of the imminent moratorium on northern cod stocks.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the government is prepared to consider now making available assistance to sustain these families until such time as a long-term program to rebuild cod stocks is put in place by the minister of fisheries and long-term assistance made available to those who are going to be displaced because of conservation measures.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about the situation of the fishermen not only in St. Anthony but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada where their incomes have dropped quite dramatically because of the problem of cod stocks and fishing stocks generally for reasons that we are acquainted with.
One of the reasons why the government in 1990 responded with a $584 million Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, and I think almost a $40 million catch failure program the next year, was precisely to accommodate this sad reality. The situation has not improved and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been working on a program that we think will be helpful and constructive.
I have been talking to some of the union leaders in Newfoundland as late as last evening. The minister of fisheries, who is travelling in Atlantic Canada, will be talking to me again tonight. We hope to move forward and respond to this very real problem that is hurting all the fishing families in Newfoundland and Labrador.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House from Newfoundland, indeed members from Atlantic Canada, appreciate that the government has put assistance programs in place in 1990 and 1991. Federal governments going back over 10 years have had to assist the Atlantic fishing industry on occasion.
I want to make clear to the Prime Minister what the families are asking for now. What they are saying is that they understand that whatever action must be taken to rebuild those stocks must be undertaken no matter what the cost, including the cost to families. Until such time as the long-term plan is put in place, as it must be, and until such time as long-term compensation measures are worked out, as we are confident they will be, in the interim, just to sustain the basics of life, to put bread and butter on the table, can Atlantic fishing families, in particular in Newfoundland and Labrador, expect this government to intervene to provide them with some economic assistance soon, now if possible?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend quite properly divides the problem in two. The long-term problem will partly be resolved as a result of the UNCED conference in Rio and other long-term initiatives to revive the cod stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador. That is certainly a long-term problem. I think we are in general agreement that the minister of fisheries, for example, did a tremendous job in Rio in regard to the protection of the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.
With regard to the more immediate problem, as we know Rick Cashin is chairing a task force in regard to the specific problem. The minister of fisheries and the member for St. John's East have been making specific recommendations to the government as to how the Government of Canada can assist the fishermen and the communities in the short term, which I think is the problem raised by my hon. friend.
The record indicates that when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador needed assistance this government, the Government of Canada, did not fail to respond. I am waiting to hear from the minister of fisheries in regard to his ideas. When he has a specific program I am satisfied that the government will respond in a fair and I think helpful way to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Newfoundland inshore fisherman from Fogo Island, Mr. Larry Donahue, trying hard to catch fish, watched helplessly as 50 of his nets were dragged up and destroyed by a factory trawler from France in the northern cod zone.
June 17, 1992

How can the Government of Canada not only give France cod quotas in the northern cod zone but now notify the Canadian Embassy in Paris that it is going to give France more quotas in the northern cod zone from July 1 until September 30 when the boundary dispute has been settled?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the boundary dispute has been settled. I think it has been settled very much to Canada's satisfaction and in the interest of the Newfoundland fishery. I should point out in terms of what is happening right now, the quotas that have been granted now until the end of September follow directly from the agreement of March 1989. There is a legal obligation to continue with that.
No one will be happier than the minister of fisheries and the Government of Canada once this obligation is completed. We will be in a position to fully manage as a result of the decision that was made by the boundaries commission.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the 1989 agreement signed by the Government of Canada gave France northern cod quotas for two years "in proportion to the Canadian offshore allocation".
Does the government not realize that there has been a moratorium on the Canadian offshore allocation for the past six months and any proportion of zero is still zero even for France?
Why is the government giving northern cod quotas to France illegally?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the way article 5 reads is not the way the hon. member has described it.
The 15 per cent that was granted was based on the law. The decision did not come down before May 15. The hon. member is trying to over-simplify what has been a difficult and technical problem for us. After September 30 we are going to be in an excellent position, thanks to the fact that we won a very important international case which has the best possible implications for the fishery in Newfoundland.
Oral Questions YOUNG OFFENDERS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the distinguished Minister of Justice.
Increasingly, Canadians are becoming quite disturbed by the punishment meted out to young offenders under 17 years of age, especially if they have been convicted of a homicide or brutal assault.
What action does the minister intend to take to stop the giving of a slight slap on the wrist and young offenders being told to be good and go back home?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who is a man of rare discernment and good taste for the question.
The question is a serious one. It has been dealt with to some degree already by members of this House in passing amendments to the Young Offenders Act and of later statutes which provide a greater range of options available to judges in transferring young offenders' charges on very serious crimes to adult court thereby providing a larger range of sentence and parole options.
As the hon. member will know, there is considerable concern in this country with the Young Offenders Act. Some of it is more a reflection of how the act is implemented than what is in it itself. We are undertaking with the active participation of members of this House, in particular members of our caucus, a review of the Young Offenders Act in order to try and address the concerns the hon. member raises.
Confidence of the Canadian people in the justice system is absolutely vital. We wish to address the concerns of Canadians with respect to the Young Offenders Act and we are geared to doing that.


CHRISTINE LAMONT AND DAVID SPENCER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Many Canadians are deeply concerned about the continued imprisonment in Brazilian jails on 28-year sentences of two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer.

June 17, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Prime Minister to confirm that he raised the plight of Lamont and Spencer with Brazilian President Collor during his recent trip to Rio for the earth summit.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House and to the families of Christine Lamont and David Spencer the nature of the representations the Prime Minister made and the response of the Brazilian president?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to confirm to my hon. friend that I did indeed raise this very serious case with the President of Brazil in a meeting with him a few days ago in Rio.
I put forward views that I thought would be helpful and appropriate in regard to that situation. He is taking them into consideration and I would expect that we will be advised of the decision of his government.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be interested to know what the views were of the Prime Minister with respect to an appropriate resolution of this.
I would like to ask my supplementary of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. She knows that last week the House of Commons justice committee unanimously agreed to urge the minister to request the expulsion of Lamont and Spencer in accordance with Brazilian law and in accordance with Canada's obligations under international human rights conventions.
My question is straightforward: Will the minister now accept this unanimous all-party recommendation, show leadership on behalf of these young Canadians and seek their expulsion from Brazil and their return to their families in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been very troubled by and interested in this case. She called me in Brazil to advise me of the unanimous report that had just been released, I think it was that night, by the committee.
I examined with Brazilian officials the concept that they were sitting around waiting for a request for an expulsion to which they would respond immediately. This is not the case. This is not an accurate assumption and people ought to set it aside.
I did raise with the President the opportunities under Brazil's constitution available to him and to the Government of Canada in considering the plight of these two prisoners, for whom we all feel a great deal of concern and anxiety. After a good discussion with the President, I left with him an invitation to communicate with me as quickly as he could regarding a resolution on it.


RECREATIONAL FISHERY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I had the opportunity at the request of the then minister to chair the last national recreational fisheries conference in 1989. Another such conference is being held in September of this year.
I am concerned to hear there are signals emanating from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which indicate a diminishing priority for recreational fisheries in that department. The most important signal is the apparent termination of the national recreational fisheries survey.
That survey is one of the most important tools we have for managing the recreational fishery in Canada. Among other things, it indicates that sports fishing is a major contributor to our economy to the extent of about $5 billion directly and it involves six million citizens.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the recreational fishery survey has actually been cancelled and if so, why? Does this reflect or reveal a diminishing priority for recreational fisheries in the department?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the recreational fisheries survey is done every five years. The preliminary results of the 1990 survey were already issued in the fall of 1991. The final results will be issued this fall.
The hon. member is also aware that the conference which takes place every so often will take place again this fall. It will be co-sponsored by the federal and the provincial governments involved.
June 17, 1992

I can assure the hon. member that the 1995 survey is already committed to and will be carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.
Media reports today allege that the names of CSIS informers are "now routinely given to politicians". If this is accurate, it is scandalous.
Will the minister tell this House whether this report has any foundation? If so, will he immediately investigate this serious breach of national security and report to Parliament on the precise steps he is taking to rectify it?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this matter has been raised in the House. I want to assure my friend that names of CSIS sources are not and in fact in the course of my tenure as Solicitor General have not been revealed to the Solicitor General.


Derek Vincent Lee: These reports indicate very clearly that even the government's own officials are questioning the minister's authority to be in possession of this information.
Will he give this House his assurance that this sensitive informant information in his hands will not be shared with fellow politicians and that information gathered by CSIS will be monitored closely within the rules of law?
Will he commit now to report to Parliament either to the national security subcommittee or to the Security Intelligence Review Committee on this serious matter?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous assurance to the House and to the Canadian public.
CSIS sources are not revealed to me in the course of the conduct of my operations as Solicitor General. From time to time, I am made aware of the circumstances surrounding a particular sensitive operation, but never the name.
Oral Questions CANADA POST


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for Canada Post, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Canada Post Corporation announced its plan to rationalize the nation's mail sorting system. That announcement identified 92 communities where some 295 jobs are in jeopardy as well as service to those communities.
Reports suggest this is the beginning of many phases. Will the minister admit this is the tip of the iceberg and that more reorganization affecting some 500 jobs, employment and local economies are in jeopardy?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, the minister responsible for Canada Post is absent on important government business.
I will take notice of the question and I am sure that he will report to him very quickly.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I think that we are looking at jobs across the board.
On July 1, Canada Post will start with a new program of collecting tax and duty on mail products from foreign countries. Some work previously done by Revenue Canada will be transferred to Canada Post.
How many jobs will be lost there? How much work will be contracted out? How much will Revenue Canada be paying Canada Post for this program?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I will also inform my colleague of that particular question.


BANK SERVICE CHARGES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

June 17, 1992
Oral Questions
There is an awareness out there in Canada by consumers and small businesses that what the banks lose on their real estate investments they will pick from the pockets of consumers and small businesses.
Some banks have announced a freeze. That is like closing the door after the horses have eaten all the hay, all the oats and then left.
My question to this minister who is also the Minister of State for Agriculture: Will the minister call in the banks and tell them to roll back their service charges and then freeze them?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago or maybe a little more, the Minister of Finance and I said in this House that we had told the banks that there was no question of making consumers pay for any losses incurred by any of them in real estate transactions. We reassured the House on this point several times.
My colleague also knows that I personally met the bankers' representatives to ask them to lower credit card interest rates-this is the subject that concerns him. Rates have fallen nearly 5 per cent and are now about 7 per cent, the lowest in the past 20 years. This is quite something and is due to this government's economic policies. I believe that it is all to the good for consumers.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have only one thing to say to the Minister of State for Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that is horse feathers.
My question had nothing to do with credit card interest rates. We are talking about bank service charges. I will repeat again to the minister, will he call in the banks and order a roll back on the service charges and then a freeze, not for three banks, but for the six biggest banks?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just mentioned, several banks have already said that they were freezing these charges for some time. This shows that there is very keen
competition now. It is common knowledge that the financial institutions are competing fiercely with one another. Interest rates are at their lowest level and the banks are outdoing each other to get customers, which only benefits consumers. Instead of blaming the government, my colleague should thank us and congratulate us on our economic policies.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has indicated that he is looking for ways to help Canada compete by improving our municipal infrastructure as long as it is within the existing fiscal framework.
About one-third of the green plan budget or $1 billion has not yet publicly been committed.
I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to help the environment improve our competitiveness by using and spending the remaining green plan funds to put Canadians back to work, building and rebuilding our municipal infrastructure, rather than spending the money on more studies?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it allows me to point out that in the green plan $.25 billion over six years is going toward infrastructure for Indian peoples in this country, for our native people to upgrade their water and sewage systems. We are helping in an area where it is badly needed and the green plan is doing that.
As far as infrastructure for municipalities is concerned, I remind the hon. member that we are working in our airports to improve the infrastucture there which creates employment and activity, and is our responsibility. We are helping with the fixed link, for example, to P.E.I., which will have private industry financing, but at the same time encouragement from the government.
As the first ministers mentioned in their meeting of the Prime Minister and the premiers, we are taking a look at the the Trans-Canada Highway and the national road system as a possibility of an area where we may be able to co-operate with the municipalities. That is ongoing with the provinces at the present time.
June 17, 1992


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jim Snow, Member of the House of Representatives, Parliament of Australia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. During Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 31, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing made reference to and criticized the procedures on a bill, Bill C-80, which is currently in committee.
My position is that it was inappropriate and should not have been done at that time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to 111 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have two series of documents to present today.
On behalf of the right hon. President of the Privy Council I am pleased to table in this House today, in
Routine Proceedings
both official languages, for the fiscal year ending March 31,1992 a copy of the annual reports to Parliament of the Public Service Staff Relations Board; the first one concerns the management of access-to-information legislation and the second the protection of personal information.



TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, also on behalf of the President of the Privy Council I wish to present to the House the annual report to Parliament of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, as required by the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, for the period ended March 31, 1992.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the report of the heads of delegation meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the CSCE, on May 22, 1992, in Budapest, Hungary, in both official languages.



INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REGIONAL AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION OF SECOND REPORT OF COMMITTEE

['First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for his notice. I want to say to the House that the House will understand that in other obligations I have had in the past, I would have a very real understanding of the issue, as brought before the House today by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I know that concern is shared by other members.\nI listened very carefully today to the exchange between the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and I noticed the member referred to it in his intervention at this time. However, I feel that I must adhere carefully to the rule. Despite the fact that this is not only a serious matter but is a matter of intense concern to a lot of people, I am not disposed at this time this afternoon to adjourn the House', 'June 17, 1992\nRoutine Proceedings\nbusiness for a debate, but I shall be watching the matter very closely.']
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development, I wish to present the committee's second report concerning the tourism industry.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Routine Proceedings



Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to submit a petition with regard to the Court Challenges Program. A number of individuals from the province of Ontario signed the first petition, as well as individuals from elsewhere in the country including the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who are all objecting to the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the Court Challenges Program which has benefited Canadians and minority groups across this country. They hope the government will act promptly in terms of reinstating the Court Challenges Program.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table ten more petitions today, further to a campaign by Canadians, urging the Parliament of Canada to review the government's decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program. As you know, this program enabled Canadians to go before the courts to defend their constitutional rights, to have them clarified and sometimes obtain recognition of those rights from the mostly provincial authorities.
The Court Challenges Program did not cost much-only about 10 cents per Canadian per year. It enabled Canadians to seek equal justice for all.
The people who signed these petitions call on Parliament to reconsider reinstating the Court Challenges Program which gives all Canadians equal access to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that a committee of this House has unanimously supported the action taken by all these petitioners.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of constituents of the riding of Macleod resident in the area of Claresholm
and surrounding area, sponsored by the Kinsmen and Kinette clubs of Canada. It is a petition to promote pride in being Canadian, something which we are all proud to be.
Included on this petition I note the signature of a minister of the Government of Alberta as well. We are all proud to be Canadians.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table a petition under Standing Order 36 from a number of residents of Calgary North who are concerned that the Department of Transport may amend the present airport policy which has insulated the citizens of Calgary North from noise generated by the airport since 1986.
The petitioners urge that the Department of Transport maintain the present airport policy regarding runway No. 28 which requires that all departing flights make a 15 degree turn to the north.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions from constituents in the Scarborough area.
They feel strongly about the imposition of the GST on books and call upon Parliament to reinstate the tax free status for the printed word by reinstating the zero rate in the GST regulations.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from constituents in the east metro Toronto area which calls on the government to participate in shared cost provincial and federal co-op housing. It calls on the government to maintain its participation in the field and to maintain the existence of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present nine petitions from Portage la Prairie, Carman, Oakville and surrounding municipalities signed by hundreds of people in the area.
June 17, 1992

The petitioners ask the government to replace or to change the Young Offenders Act so the right punishment and a stronger punishment would go to young offenders who are accused and found guilty.


M. Mac Harb (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting to this House a petition signed by residents of the Ottawa-Carleton area. The petitioners are asking the government to table a fairer bill for people seeking refuge in Canada.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition under Standing Order 36. It was co-ordinated by Elizabeth J. Dutton of Thornhill. This petition calls for the government to enact legislation providing for:
(a)	a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government; and
(b)	the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by:
(1)	a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with;
(2)	a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize more petitions, the Speaker has a ruling to make. If I may impose on the House for a minute, let us hear the ruling and then I will come back.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52(1) from the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on an application for an emergency debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice of my intention to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 52, to discuss a specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the plight of fishermen and
fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been without any source of income since May 15.
These individuals require urgent interim economic assistance to sustain the basics of life until such time as the Government of Canada, under the guidance of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, makes final decisions on a fisheries management program and provides compensation for those who will be displaced as a result of conservation measures.
I have a brief comment. Members of the fishing community in Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, throughout Atlantic Canada, are aware that Parliament is scheduled to adjourn within a matter of a few parliamentary sitting days. They are aware that dramatic and drastic action must be taken to sustain the cod species, the cod stocks. They are prepared for the consequences of those decisions but they want, I believe legitimately, their voice to be heard before the House rises for a scheduled summer recess, and that both the problems and the potential that exist in the current environment be discussed in this place.
They sense that the deep calamity they are experiencing is one that has been discussed and has been understood and has been acknowledged and has been dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. It is in that spirit and in the spirit of the exchange in Question Period today that I make this request on an urgent basis, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for his notice. I want to say to the House that the House will understand that in other obligations I have had in the past, I would have a very real understanding of the issue, as brought before the House today by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I know that concern is shared by other members.
I listened very carefully today to the exchange between the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and I noticed the member referred to it in his intervention at this time. However, I feel that I must adhere carefully to the rule. Despite the fact that this is not only a serious matter but is a matter of intense concern to a lot of people, I am not disposed at this time this afternoon to adjourn the House

June 17, 1992
Routine Proceedings
business for a debate, but I shall be watching the matter very closely.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition to the House of Commons and the government from Ellen Sommerville. This a petition of largely senior citizens from my riding who point out that some 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty and that hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who are senior citizens live in poverty.
The petitioners therefore appeal that it is undignified to increase Old Age Security by 37 cents a month. They would rather have the government keep that 37 cents each month than be humiliated in that fashion. They are requesting the Government of Canada to try to make the Old Age Security not only dignified but realistic to meet the aspirations of senior citizens in this country.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present petitions on behalf of constituents of Winnipeg North with respect to the Old Age Security pensions and the Seniors Independence Program.
My constituents are concerned that there are still thousands and thousands of Canadian seniors who live in poverty, that in fact the 37 cent increase in their pensions in April 1992 not only ignores the needs of many of them but is an insult to them, and that moreover the federal government has a primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions.
Therefore, these petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to ensure that the Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of our seniors and that the government restore a strong support for the Seniors Independence Program.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present two petitions by good constituents and especially good Nova
Scotians on something that exists right at the grassroots of one's riding, and that is the concern that my petitioners have about the variance between federal truck rates and provincial truck rates and the problems that this causes in predatory pricing.
My petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation for the adoption of minimum rate schedules for dump trucks on federal projects at rates not less than the minimum truck haul rates and conditions set by each province where the federal project is to be undertaken. I so humbly pray on their behalf.


William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present to the House a petition from a number of my constituents living in the Emestown and Napanee areas situated in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
These petitioners are supporting the government's commitment as stated in the Speech from the Throne on May 13,1991 to introduce legislation which would permit a national referendum on the Constitution if necessary.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by residents of Ottawa, Gatineau and Hull collected by Janice Manchee from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Human Rights Division.
The petitioners note that in October 1985 the subcommittee on equality rights of the justice committee unanimously recommended to Parliament that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
They note that the government promised in March 1986 to implement this recommendation but that some six years later the government has yet to act. They point out that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for this amendment and that a number of provincial governments have acted.
Therefore, they call upon Parliament to ensure that government and Parliament act to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have another petition which is signed by residents of Vancouver and Burnaby which notes that Steven Ogunwuyi, a Nigerian of 23 years of age, was unwittingly implicated in an unsuccessful coup attempt against the unelected president of Nigeria. It notes that prison conditions in Nigeria are appalling and that other people implicated in the coup have been executed after totally unacceptable trials.
The petition notes that he has escaped from Nigeria and is seeking refugee status in Canada and he fears for his life. Therefore, the petitioners urge the House of Commons to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration to allow Steven Ogunwuyi to remain in Canada on compassionate grounds.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 210 students and staff from Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam.
The petitioners say that Dupont is the world's largest producer of CFCs with a major plant here in Canada capable of producing up to 18,000 tonnes annually. For almost 20 years the company has continued to produce these chemicals, despite scientific evidence linking them to the destruction of the ozone layer. They say that ozone in southern Canada will be depleted by 15 per cent this year, resulting in a staggering 26 per cent increase in skin cancer, and that the only real answer is to stop producing those ozone-destroying chemicals now.
The petitioners demand that Dupont stop its production of ozone-destroying chemicals now.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to submit a petition signed by a number of residents of Brandon-Souris, including a number of young people who believe very strongly that it is important for Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada, and noting that very often we are too reserved and we thus conceal our patriotic feelings.
They have signed this petition in which they support the Kinsmen and Kinette clubs of Canada, specifically in their Proud to be a Canadian project. They indicate that
Routine Proceedings
this project is an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship, whether based on heritage or whether based on the flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles, and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions signed mainly by people in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona.
This first petition calls upon Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support the federal non-profit co-operative housing program, and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: This petition calls upon Parliament to consider removing the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and indeed an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from British Columbia who now, in total petition numbers, total well over 10,000. They point out that a firm called Multinational Resources intends to divert water from the North Thompson River in British Columbia in order to sell the water in southern California.
They are going ahead with this plan. They are spending millions of dollars on pre-engineering studies and feasibility studies. These residents are saying it is time that we say "forget it; scrap your plans because the waters of Canada will not be sold to California through river diversion".


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have petitioners from Manitoba who ask for a fairer and simpler taxation system. They feel that the current system is unfair toward the poor, too onerous for middle class Canadians and business people and they want to ensure that it is non-discriminatory. For example, they refer to taxable child credits. They point out that certain people get them and others do not.

June 17, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Ron J. Duhamel: My other petition, Mr. Speaker, asks Parliament to ensure that the CRTC monitors veiy closely the use of foul language on radio and television. They point out that it is not necessary to use that type of language to inform or entertain.
The petitioners point out as well that it counteracts efforts of the family in this regard.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by residents of Kamloops, Vancouver, Burnaby and other cities and municipalities in British Columbia which notes that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
The petition notes that the only relief which is available from their severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition. It is signed by a number of people from Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Income Ihx Act to allow all wage earners to be eligible for the goods and services tax rebate, regardless of age, because taxpayers under 19 years of age cannot get the rebate while awaiting the repeal of the tax itself.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if I could get unanimous consent to go back to Private Members' Business because there is a bill I wish to introduce.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PENSION ACT


Ron J. Duhamel: for leave to introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Pension Act (pension commencement date).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the unanimous consent.
This bill is based on a basic fundamental principle which is as follows. If a citizen owes the government money, the government can come at any time and collect that money, obviously according to the laws and procedures which exist. There are a number of programs to which citizens are entitled, particularly in the domain of pensions where it does not work that way, where retroactivity exists for a very limited period of time.
The intent of this bill is to ensure that retroactivity is permitted when a citizen merits a particular pension and he or she did not ask for it at a particular point in time, perhaps because of lack of knowledge. That is the intent. Hopefully, we could look at other areas besides this one later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Duhamel moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?
June 17, 1992


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on third reading of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act now that the legislative committee has completed its study and reported its findings to this House.
First I would like to thank the member for Welland- St. Catharines-Thorold who chaired the legislative committee and the hon. members who studied the bill very closely. Second, I would like to express appreciation to the witnesses who took time to appear before the committee to make their views known.
As a result of the committee's thorough and thoughtful work, a number of amendments have been made to
Government Orders
the bill and I am pleased to note that these clarify and strengthen the intended effects of the proposed changes in the pension programs.
All members will recall that the President of the Treasury Board has already described Bill C-55 as an important step in the evolution of the various pension plans in the federal Public Service. It is a bill that makes a number of improvements to the plans, thereby responding to some of the long-standing concerns of the plan members.
It fulfils the government's commitment to ensure that its pension plans, like all other employer-sponsored pension plans in Canada, comply with the new Income Tax Act rules for registered pension plans and it moves to improve the funding and the financing of the benefits provided under the pension plans.
Bill C-55 is a relatively complex bill in that it proposes amendments to the existing pension statutes, provides for details of some program improvements to be established by regulation and enacts two new statutes.
The principal statutes the bill would amend are the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the RCMP Superannuation Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. The new statutes that would be enacted by Bill C-55 are the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act.
I would like to take a few minutes to remind all members of the various fairness proposals and improvements contained in Bill C-55.
First, the Public Service Superannuation Act would be amended to provide pension coverage for part-time employees who work more than 12 hours a week. Coverage for existing part-time employees would be optional but it would be compulsory for employees engaged on a part-time basis in the future.
In addition, employees could choose to buy back periods of part-time service up to and including January 1, 1981. While providing all employees with increased flexibility to balance work and family responsibilities and still continue to accrue pension benefits, this proposal is expected to be particularly helpful to women, since they are most often the ones who decide to work on a part-time basis while their children are small.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
Similarly, women with young families will be among the plan members most likely to take advantage of the bill's proposals with regard to paying back pension contributions for periods of leave without pay.
Current provisions can impose financial hardships which the bill would alleviate by allowing plan members to elect not to count periods of leave without pay in excess of three months. Later on the plan member could choose to count such periods and pay for them over a more extended elective service period.
The bill's proposal to establish an early retirement program for the operational employees of the Correctional Service of Canada would honour a long-standing commitment of this government and of previous governments.
I believe that all hon. members will support this initiative which would provide those individuals who work in the highly stressful environment of the various correctional institutions and associated programs of this country with the flexibility and financial resources to move on from that environment after a reasonable period of service. Such a program would contribute to the general public's security by ensuring that the corrections work force continues to be effective.
I am particularly pleased that the bill proposes improvements to the life insurance plans, known as the supplementary death benefits plans provided by the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Coverage would be doubled from one year's salary to twice the salary of the participant and the paid-up benefit-that is the benefit on which no participant contributions are required and the only benefit remaining after age 70-would increase from $500 to $5,000.
These improved benefits would be funded solely from the reserves in the death benefit account. There would be no extra cost to either the plan participants or to the taxpayers.
Most of the improvements in the pension plans I have mentioned so far have an important bearing on family financial planning. One of the new statutes that would be enacted by Bill C-55 would also assist in this area. I am speaking of the Pension Benefits Division Act which would allow benefits accrued under federal pension plans to be recognized as family assets that could be subject to a division on marital breakdown.
In most provincial jurisdictions and under the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act, plan sponsors are required to honour court orders for separation agreements that specify such a division. Up until now there has been no mechanism under the federal plan to permit what is commonly referred to as credit splitting.
The Pension Benefits Division Act would, subject to provisions of a court order or spousal agreement, permit a lump sum of up to 50 per cent of the value of the pension benefits accrued during this specific period to be transferred to a retirement savings vehicle for the legal or common law spouse. The plan member's pension benefits would then be adjusted accordingly. I believe that the Pension Benefits Division Act and regulations once enacted should provide valuable assistance to couples who are endeavouring to arrive at a fair and satisfactory property settlement.
One other improvement which responds to requests made over the years by retired Public Service employees, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the RCMP is the opportunity afforded by Bill C-55 for pensioners under all the plans to provide survivor benefit coverage for a spouse married after retirement or after age 60 in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP.
This elective opportunity would be accompanied by an actuarial adjustment to the plan member's own pension, an adjustment made necessary by the need to maintain the actuarial soundness of the pension plans and in keeping with the principle that the liabilities of pension funds are normally not extended to cover individuals who become family members after the plan member has retired.
I would also like to remind hon. members that the bill contains two provisions that would affect members of the Canadian forces and the RCMP only. One is the extension of the pension coverage to full-time members of the reserve force who left the regular forces without entitlement to a pension; the other is the standardization of age and service requirements under the RCMP Superannuation Act for voluntary retirement of officers with the requirements for other ranks.
I would not wish to go further without mentioning Bill C-55's proposals, which would apply to all the pension plans for the full funding of the plan member's benefits as they are earned. This means that the credits made to the various pension accounts, representing employer and plan members' contributions together with interest earn-

ings, must be sufficient to cover all future benefits of plan members as they are being earned.
As part of this exercise, the basic pension accounts of the PSSA, the CFSA and the RCMPSA would be combined with the relevant portions of the supplementary retirement benefits account. The responsibility for any unfunded liabilities would be assumed by the government. Employee contribution rates would remain the same and the government would contribute at whatever level is necessary to maintain full advanced funding of the benefits as they are earned.
I must emphasize that the bill's provisions for full funding increase the security of the plan and mean that there must also be sufficient funds credited to the account to cover the cost of all benefits acquired as of any given date. I trust that this will reassure those public service unions and pensioner organizations who voiced concerns at committee that the effective date of combining the accounts would allow the government to take a contributions holiday.
I have already mentioned that Bill C-55 would ensure that the federal pension plans comply with the Income Ikx Act rules for registered pension plans in the same way as any other employer sponsored pension plans in Canada must comply.
Compliance would be achieved through a combination of statutory amendments to the existing plans, regulation-making authority and the enactment of a new statute, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act.
For example, statutory amendments would limit the level of salary on which benefits can be based so that those benefits would not exceed the maximum accrual of $1,722 for each year of plan membership permitted by the Income Tax Act and regulations.
At the same time, the bill provides a mechanism to continue elements of the program that exceed the income tax rules through retirement compensation arrangements. With the exception of the members of Parliament pension plan, these arrangements would be authorized under the proposed Special Retirement Arrangements Act. The retirement compensation arrangement for members of Parliament would be provided
Government Orders
under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I am happy to report that Bill C-55's proposals have largely been welcomed by plan members. However, some public service unions and pensioner organizations have been critical of the regulation-making authority contained in the bill and have caused what I feel to be undue alarm by alleging that the authority for continued Income Thx Act compliance could be used by this government or any future government to change the indexing provisions of the pension plans.
I want to assure hon. members, as the President of the Treasury Board has assured the organizations involved, that there is no intention on the part of this government to use the regulation-making authority for any purpose other than Income Tax Act compliance. A thorough review has confirmed that the authority would not be used to modify or alter acquired rights including indexing.
However, in recognition of the concerns felt by plan members, the government proposed a motion to the committee, which was carried, that would explicitly limit the scope of the authority to compliance with the Income Thx Act and regulations as they read on January 15,1992.
As well, an amendment has been included to reinforce the fact that no regulation under this authority can have a negative impact on accrued rights. The question of meeting future income tax requirements would be addressed as part of the promised stakeholder view of the fundamental elements of the pension plans.
Union criticism has also been directed at the proposed early retirement program for operational employees of the Correctional Service of Canada. While welcoming the program, the unions have let it be known that they would prefer to see all the details of the program set out in the statute as the authority for establishing a program instead of being left to regulation.
However, hon. members are well aware that the regulation mechanism is surrounded by safeguards to ensure that regulations are within statutory authority and that they are made public both before and after enactment. Regulations are, of course, also subject to a review by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
In addition, unions may rest assured that the regulations of the Correctional Service program will not be developed without prior consultation.
The subject of consultation brings me now to the question of the stakeholder review. I have already indicated that Bill C-55 is one step in the Public Service reform process. The next step will be a review of the outstanding issues involved in the Public Service plans and the plan of members of Parliament.
Among the issues to be resolved for the Public Service plans are plan management, the rate of return to be credited to the funds, future inflation protection arrangements, and questions related to plan design including such things as conformity with the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act and the possible redesigning of survivors benefits. These are matters that were spoken about by witnesses before the committee.
As soon as Bill C-55 is passed, the president intends to meet with his advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act to embark on the next step of the pension reform process. I know that the President of the Treasury Board is looking forward to working with representatives of the various stakeholders in the plan so that together they can come to a consensus and reach solutions that will be as satisfactory as possible to all parties concerned.
I therefore urge hon. members to expedite the passage of Bill C-55 so that we can implement the improvements it proposes and so that there will be no further delays in providing pension coverage for part-time employees, paying out the increased supplemental death benefits to the appropriate beneficiaries, or affording separated and divorced spouses a fair division of the pension benefits accrued under the federal plans.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come to typify for many of us who have been involved intimately in every clause, every section and every word of it and in every moment of lengthy committee hearings and debate on the bill the approach of the government. It presents one thing and actually does another. It takes small improvements and surrounds them by a bush of unpleasant, unwelcomed and damaging changes. It looks after those who have the most but not those who have the least.
I want to go into some specifics to put some flesh on those contentions. Last December 10 the minister announced that there would be changes to the pension legislation. He announced that there would be improvements to remove some unfairnesses in the pension situation and that there would be changes to bring the act into conformity with the Income Tkx Act. Nobody could disagree with those intentions. We as the Liberal Party did not disagree with those intentions and those principles at the time the bill was debated at second reading stage.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sony to interrupt the member but I just want clarification. We are questioning the member who just spoke. I hope she is not starting her debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under the Standing Orders there are no questions or comments. The first two speakers receive 40-minute speeches without questions or comments. Then we will go to the third speaker who will be from your party and who will get 20 minutes plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Marlene Catterall: However, as the committee began its deliberations and finally had time to look at what the bill had to say, it became evident that the government had brought in some improvements to the bill as it had promised, some very minor improvements, but was then using this bill to hijack in a complete takeover of the management of the pension plan, contrary to the promises by the minister back in December that no changes would be made to the management of the pension plan except following a thorough and complete review in consultation with all the other stakeholders.
Those stakeholders include members of the Public Service who contribute 7.5 per cent of their income to their pension plans. It also includes hundreds of thousands of retired Public Service employees who collect benefits based on the contributions they made during their working years.
Despite the promise of the minister that any change in the management of the plan would be dealt with through a thorough and consultative review, this bill has been used to attempt to take over the management of the plan to an even greater degree than the government already does.
June 17, 1992

I want to go through several very specific aspects of how the government has approached this bill to explain clearly why we are voting against it despite some long awaited improvements in pensions, especially some that relate to charter rights of certain groups in society.
Pension reform has a long history going back over a decade. In the early 1980s there was a major parliamentary review of pension plans in Canada in recognition of the fact that Canada had an aging population and that in the very near future we would have a much larger proportion of our population in the retirement years.
There was genuine and legitimate public concern about how people would support themselves in retirement and whether the country's pension plans were adequate for people to live with dignity, decency and comfort after a lifetime of working.
That commission reported and recommended some major reforms to numerous pension plans and to legislation governing pension plans in Canada. Shortly after there was a review of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to see how pension plans in Canada, among other things, conformed with the charter. That committee also reported and recommended major changes to pension plans in Canada, including the public sector pension plans.
The government of the day responded to those two committee reports. It brought in the Pension Benefits Standards Act which applies to all federally regulated employers and their pension plans and told them what standards private sector pension plans had to meet. It did not and has not to this date brought its own public sector pension plans into conformity with that act.
Once again it is the government saying to everybody else in Canada: "This is what you have to do, but we can ignore our own laws; we can ignore our own rules".
It changed the Canada Pension Plan to meet the standards the committees having reviewed the plans had recommended. But while Public Service employees, Armed Forces employees and RCMP personnel continued to contribute generously to their pension plans, those pension plans continued not to meet the basic test of fairness that the government imposed on private
Government Orders
sector plans and that it had implemented for the Canada Pension Plan.
The government continues to say "trust us". The government continues to say that it will sit down with employees, will review the pension plans, will see where changes and improvements need to be made, and will do it jointly and in partnership. Those are words the government uses very nicely but seems to have a hard time living by.
Let me make it clear why there is no trust on this issue. There is no trust because it is now close to a decade that people have waited for the pension plans to be brought into conformity with the recommendations of two major parliamentary committees and into conformity with the government's own legislation.
It is now nearly a decade that they have been waiting for the government to legislate a fair rate of return on the $73 billion worth of pension funds that Public Service employees, Armed Forces personnel and RCMP personnel contribute. It is now nearly a decade they have been waiting for some say in the management of their own money. But the government unilaterally continues to decide what the benefits are, what the contributions are, what the rate of return to the fund is, and continues to cheat people contributing to these plans of a fair rate of return on their own money.
It is now seven years since the President of the Treasury Board promised the review, five years since he promised it again, three years since he promised it the third and fourth times, and now six months since the latest President of the Treasury Board has promised a review.
Not one step has been taken to consult with the pensioners or to consult with the people, whose money we are talking about, to conduct that review. Why should there be any trust?
It is no wonder that people who have watched this process carefully and who have waited patiently for improvements and fairness in their pension plan, as the government has dictated for other pension plans, say that this is a government that operates by stealth, by hidden agendas, by secretive decision making, by subterfuge and by double-dealing. This bill demonstrates that very clearly.

Government Orders
The government likes to say that it wants to co-operate with its employees, it wants to co-operate with its partners in these pension funds. It has failed to listen to the testimony that was put before the committee. It failed to respond to the concerns of the pensioners and future pensioners and to members of the opposition. Very legitimate points that were raised in committee were not responded to and were not addressed.
There were numerous amendments put before this House in a last minute effort to tiy to get the government to live up to its word on this bill and on what it was supposed to do. Those amendments were unanimously turned down by the government.
Finally, the bill shows a complete lack of fairness. It is almost as if the government has trouble passing up any opportunity to profit from human misfortune. That is most evident in the comments I will make shortly on how divorced and separated wives of Public Service pensioners, armed forces or RCMP personnel are treated.
I want to talk about some of the specifics of the bill. The government has done, as we say and as we admit, a couple of minor improvements in the pension arrangements. For instance, the improvement in the supplementary death benefit is certainly a step forward. For a number of years now there has been a tremendous surplus in that supplementary death benefit account as people's salaries have improved and as their contributions have grown. The supplementary death benefit payment has remained at a paltry $500 for many, many years.
The fact that the government has finally chosen to give people the supplementary death benefit that they are paying for and that they have generated a surplus to pay for is not particularly credit-worthy except to say that it is a tad overdue.
The major claim the government has made to giving us a fairer pension plan is that it will now allow pension splitting. In other words, it will allow in its own plans a tiny portion of what is allowed under the Canada Pension Plan or what is required under private sector pension plans. Behind this small provision in the bill lie thousands of lives of misery, thousands of years of poverty, mostly for women and their children. The government has failed miserably to resolve that situation.
This bill continues to leave in the hands of not even parliamentarians but Treasury Board officials the discretion to deem somebody to be dead just so they do not have to pay them a pension. This means that somebody who is married to an armed forces officer or an RCMP officer-I refer to those services because that is where the situation arises most often-for the entire period of time that the pensioner was accumulating the pension, may be left without any pension. The government, despite knowing for a decade that this is a serious failure of this pension plan, has entirely failed to correct that problem.
There are women who have participated throughout a marriage in the accumulation of a pension benefit being denied that pension benefit. This bill makes it worse for the spouse of a member of these plans because it now reduces from three years to one year the period in which a second spouse or common law spouse can be recognized for pension purposes.
Someone who marries a pensioner later in life who had no part in the accumulation of the pension plan may benefit, where a long-time spouse is denied the pension, even when there is a separation agreement or a support order entitling that person to half the pension when the pensioner dies.
Treasury Board has the right to totally ignore the wishes of the pensioner and the needs of a lifetime spouse and to deny any pension whatsoever to that person.
Where is the family compact when we are talking about women who followed their husbands around the world in military service, who gave up any opportunity to develop their own careers, who in essence became part of the military in supporting the career of a military member, who never were able because of that to develop their own pension plans and who could be left in poverty by a government that would bring forward a bill like this and leave that unjust and unfair situation in place?
The government will say it is allowing court orders to say that a spouse can get a capital value. That is a help. It makes it easier for a couple separating to divide an asset without putting both of them into poverty. However, there is no guarantee that the spouse will have an asset that will anywhere produce the pension that the spouse has earned by being married.
June 17, 1992

In other words, this bill totally ignores the principle which has been well established in the courts that a pension acquired during a marriage belongs equally to both partners. Until we start dealing with those issues, any time a bill like this comes before us we are still going to have, as a member of Parliament said during Question Period, 80 per cent of women alone after the age of 65 living in poverty. How can we possibly justify that? How can the government possibly justify not correcting that situation when we have spent three months on this bill and it has spent nearly a decade on it?
The bill does not deal at all with the problem, of which the government is well aware, of a disabled person getting a pension and then being deprived of a full pension if their marriage breaks up because of the disability.
Regarding correctional services, this is one very positive step forward, long overdue. I can only ask the minister if this legislation allows correctional services workers to take early retirement, why is the government afraid to spell out clearly in the legislation what that is going to mean, how much it is going to cost them and what they are going to be entitled to?
Why do I get an answer back from the President of Treasury Board that we cannot include northern correctional services workers in this provision because they have not asked for it? If it is fair for correctional services workers in southern Ontario, it is fair for correctional services workers in the north.
Why is the government unsympathetic to including airport fire-fighters in this same provision? Their work is dangerous. It is stressful.
For all the reasons that early retirement is provided to correctional services workers it should be provided to others who are engaged in similarly dangerous, stressful work in which virtually the quality of their work cannot be maintained after a certain period of time.
The government is including part-time workers but it has failed to listen to pleas to include seasonal workers. These seasonal workers may work the equivalent of a year and a half in eight months every year, yet they are
Government Orders
not allowed to contribute to the full value of the work they have performed for the Government of Canada.
For seven years this government has been promising a thorough review of the pension plans, for seven years it has been promising action on these items, yet we are presented with a bill that does not deal with these issues.
I spoke about fairness and about treating people with some equity. Therefore, I can only ask the government why officers in the Armed Forces and the RCMP, senior management and members of Parliament-in their bill-are allowed to have a 60 per cent survivor pension for their spouses but public service employees, regular run-of-the-mill RCMP personnel and Armed Forces personnel are not?
The government knows perfectly well, although it refuses to produce studies on what it would cost, that providing a 60 per cent survivor benefit for pensioners of public service employees, RCMP and Armed Forces personnel would probably cost less than one-half of one per cent. Yet it would be the difference between living in comfort and dignity and living in poverty for the survivors.
The government has even had trouble living with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this bill. It has perpetuated and continually failed to accept amendments to remove a clause that is so offensive to the Charter because it is based on discrimination according to age. It is offensive to women because it is based on the concept that women only marry retired pensioners to get their money, and offensive to retirees because it is based on the concept that nobody could possibly be interested in marrying a man over the age of 65 except for his pension. This is the famous gold-digger clause. If one is over 60 one cannot be presumed to have a wife who has married that person over 60 simply because she loves him and wants to spend the rest of her life with him.
Therefore, the government has to protect pensioners against women like that by saying that if someone marries somebody after the age of 60 when they are retired that person does not have any entitlement to the survivor's pension, even though that retiree has contributed to that pension and to the survivor's rights under that pension for an entire career.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
I think we all know that people are living longer now, they are healthier longer and they are active longer. Life goes on, and people do get remarried. A person came before us whose wife had died when he was somewhat younger. He married again after the age of 60 and expects to live a long and happy life with his second wife, but she will not get any survivor's pension when he dies. He is worried and concerned about that because it is pretty difficult when on a pension to provide a second pension for a second spouse.
I want to talk about part-time employees. The government has claimed that one of the major victories of this bill is that it would allow part-time employees to contribute to the pension plan. It does and that is important. It is important for a lot of women who work for the Public Service and choose to work part-time for a portion or all of their careers because they like to balance their work with their family responsibilities. They may work part-time for a short period after they have been on maternity leave, or for a longer period as they help their children get established.
Yes, this bill does allow, in a very limited way, part-timers to be included in the pension plan.
If the member for Ottawa-Vanier were to enter the Public Service at the age of 60 he could contribute for service in the private sector back to the time when he was 18 years old and he entered the labour force. He could then have a full pension when he retired. However, part-timers are not going to be able to do that. They are only going to be able to go back a limited number of years.
What right do we have to say that the work of part-timers is less worthy than the work of the member for Ottawa-Vanier if he were to enter the Public Service and to say that they do not have the right to go back to the beginning of their working careers and contribute for all their part-time work because it is deemed to be less valuable and less worthy? That is straight discrimination.
It is even worse than that. The bill says that unless a person was contributing to the pension plan the day this bill is passed they cannot contribute for part-time service. In other words, the vast majority of the part-timers now in the Public Service will not be able to take advantage of this despite the glorious announcements by the minister and the government.
Once again duplicity and deception, trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, seem to be the way this government operates. Give me one good reason why somebody who is working full time today and contributing to the pension plan should be able to contribute for their part-time service in the past or in the future but somebody who is working part time today, even though they may have contributed for ten years to the pension plan, cannot contribute for their part-time service. How can that possibly be fair?
The parliamentary secretary himself said that it is mostly women who are part-time workers. Why does he want to continue to discriminate against mostly women?
While the member for Ottawa-Vanier could enter the Public Service and decide 10 years from now to buy back his service back to 1940, part-time employees have only a year to decide that they want to buy back their service.
As I said in my speech on second reading, even when the government tries to do something a little bit good it does a very little bit and it tries not to go too far.
This concerns the issue of trust and honesty with people. The government said clearly that issues about the management of the pension fund would be left to a complete study and review that would be made in consultation with the employees and with the pensioners. Yet in this bill it has failed to set up any kind of management board that would give employees any stake in the management of their own money.
Six months after the minister's announcement not one step has been taken to meet with those pensioners, to meet with representatives of the employees and talk about how that review is being done. After waiting seven years, since 1985, through successive presidents of Treasury Board, for a promised review is it any wonder the employees and pensioners do not really believe that a review is going to happen now, any more than it has happened in the past?
On the other hand the government, having promised that review, has used this legislation which it said did other things to try to shoehorn in a complete takeover of the rules by which the pension fund is managed: how much is contributed, how much in benefits are paid, whether indexing is paid, how much the government contributes, what the employees have to pay. The government has tried to take all this over in this bill.
June 17, 1992

How can the government tell people: "We want to sit down with you and we are going to work out the management of the plan"? It has tried to do those things that are in its own interest.
Let me give some examples. The current amount of money in the pension fund is over $75 billion. The surpluses in the three funds in 1991 were $23.5 billion.
Now by doing as the government tried to do by saying: "We will just contribute what is needed to meet the requirements of the fund", it would have essentially been taking over that $23.5 billion of surplus money which does not belong to it. Public Service employees have contributed more year by year for over 30 years than has ever come out of that pension plan.
With this bill, the government thought it had a sneaky way of getting its hands on some of that money rather than keeping it to pay out pensions. But these figures also give a lie to statements of various ministers over the last seven years that somehow we have to bring the Public Service pension plans more into line with the private sector, that they are underfunded, that they are a huge burden of debt on the Canadian taxpayers.
I read the figure again, a $23.5 billion surplus last year. Who do you think gets to use that money and pay interest on it at less than market rates? The government. Who do you think benefits? The Canadian taxpayers because that is a direct reduction off the debt and the deficit. Who do you think loses? The pensioners and the contributors because this government refuses to treat that fund as any other well-invested fund and return to it a suitable rate of interest and rate of return.
The bill sets up something I consider far more dangerous than what is in it and that is what is not in it. It follows a consistent pattern of the government to do more and more by regulation. In other words, government takes out of the hands of Parliament the right to review legislation and puts it into the hands of administrators to decide what should happen.
When I look at a bill like this and Bill C-26 which is going to be coming before us later today, I wonder why we have a Parliament at all. Why do we not just have a growing number of bureaucrats to administer, devise, design and print a growing number of regulations? We
Government Orders
would never need to meet in this Chamber at all. You and I, Mr. Speaker, could go out and play golf four days out of five and never be missed.
When reading a piece of legislation, people are entitled to know what their rights and obligations are. People are entitled to know that in a democratic government decisions are made in this Chamber about what is in legislation, not in closed rooms and not by administrators who are not accountable to the public. People need to know we are not going to have an army of administrators administering a growing volume of regulations.
I simply cannot understand the contradiction of a government that says it wants to deregulate and then brings in a bill like this, which does not really say anything except it will pass regulations to do it.
That does not let people know what their rights are. It does not let them know what their obligations are. It removes from Parliament the right to decide how public money is going to be spent and what public policy is going to be.
One of the big contentious issues has been whether or not this legislation touches indexing of pensions and other rights that people have under the bill now. I want to quote from a letter from the President of Treasury Board to the committee: "There will be no change to the indexing benefits except by statute. The amendment to be proposed will make it absolutely clear that this is the case."
That amendment does not make it absolutely clear. The minister has not met his commitment to this House, to the committee, to the pensioners and to the contributors for whom he is the trustee of their money. It is not his money, not the government's, not mine and not the member for Carleton-Gloucester's; it is their money.
On Friday, the government refused to accept a number of amendments that would have met the minister's commitment to make it absolutely clear. The government had amendments before it which said "for greater clarity, standard provision in many bills". It refused to accept that amendment. Is it any wonder the pensioners do not trust the government? Is it any wonder Canadians do not trust it?

Government Orders
Finally, if we have any doubt about whether this government still believes in democracy and whether it still believes in this Parliament's right to set the laws of the land, there is a provision in this act that is the most shameful and most shocking I have ever seen in a piece of legislation. It undermines the right of Parliament and the right of Canadians to have their laws made here by their elected representatives.
Let me state what the provision in the bill says and then ask all parliamentarians who believe in democracy whether they want to vote for it. That provision of the bill says: "For greater clarity, where there is any conflict between the regulations and the legislation passed by this Parliament the regulations prevail, not the legislation".
That is a wide open door for a future government, a future cabinet to make regulations contradicting the legislation passed by Parliament. Is that acceptable to anyone in this House? It is not acceptable to me. It is not acceptable to the Liberal Party which believes that the laws of the land should be made by Parliament and the elected representatives of the people.
Others members of the Official Opposition will have a great deal to say about this bill. I personally find it regrettable that the government, after having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for 10 years, could not at least have chosen to ensure that pensions in its own domain are fair.
It has passed laws to create fairness in the CPP. It has passed laws to impose fairness on private sector pension plans. But it has totally ignored the needs of people based on gender, age, marital status, and disability in this bill. It has failed to be honest about its intentions with this bill.
On behalf of the members of the committee and certainly members of the Liberal Party, I personally want to thank all the employees' associations, private individuals, women fighting for fair pensions, fighting to be recognized as still being alive even though they are separated or divorced, and retirees, many of whom have worked in government and are very knowledgeable and expert in pension matters. I thank all of them for the work they have done on this bill and for the expertise that none of us individually could have brought to it.
I express my regret that the government chose not to table with the committee its studies on pension matters which made it more difficult for us to do our work thoroughly and well.
I express my great regret that at this point in time we do not have a bill before us that all parliamentarians can support enthusiastically.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak on Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact a special retirement arrangements act and the pension benefits division act which I have examined very carefully for the New Democratic caucus. We will be voting against this piece of legislation.
First of all, I want to recognize in a very serious way the people who came before the committee.
The comments made by the member for Burlington certainly do not reflect the hundreds of letters that I have received from across Canada with regard to Bill C-55. He said that there is general agreement from the members. I certainly have not heard that.
We did not hear that from the witnesses who came before the committee. The Treasury Board Secretariat was the first one who came before the committee and outlined the bill. Then we got into the real disturbing parts of the bill when the Professional Institute of Public Servants came before the committee with a very well documented presentation, and I commend it for that.
The Federal Superannuates National Association came before the committee and also expressed its concerns with regard to this piece of legislation. The Public Service Alliance of Canada also recommended numerous amendments, some of which the government did accept.
Others who came before the committee were William Lewis, Robert Battram, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans Association, the Association of Members of Division "C" of the Mounted Police, A.J. Campbell, Organization of Spouses of Military Members, Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated, the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association of Canada, and the Committee of Spousal and Children's Pensions Survival and Related Benefits.

I want to say that each one of those groups outdid itself in its presentation in explaining very clearly to the committee the very, very serious ramifications of this piece of legislation.
I think it only fair that I start by talking about several of the good features of the bill. The bill proposes some changes which we are very pleased to see, such as federal part-time workers now being covered in pension plans. Finally, after years of lobbying, federal part-time workers can now become members of the superannuation plans. This will especially help women, who form the majority of part-time workers. They are an important target group for pension reform and this new provision will help give them more income after retirement.
There is also the new early retirement for correctional workers. We are pleased to see the new early retirement act for correctional workers, another idea that has been pressed for at least a decade. Correctional workers have highly stressful jobs and deserve the kind of unreduced early retirement plans that air traffic comptrollers have had for some time now.
Regarding the new pension splitting, the new pension division act instructs the federal government to enforce court ordered divisions of federal pension credits under marital breakdown. This idea is very good and very late. It is good to see the government has finally responded. There are many problems with the method the government has chosen, however.
On behalf of the NDPI proposed over 25 amendments to this bill in committee and in the House. I and my colleagues moved many more amendments, attempting to make this a better law. The government agreed and proposed modified versions of several of our amendments. I commend it for that. Despite these improvements, however, many serious problems remain.
I would like to talk about the five major areas of concern: one, the new regulatory authority; two, the new early retirement plan for correctional workers; three, supplementary death benefits; four, MP pensions; five, the new division benefits division scheme.
On the new regulatory authority, although simple for compliance with the Income Tax Act, the bill also gives the government new regulatory authority over fundamental aspects of federal employee pension plans. This is a new fundamental shift away from the scrutiny of Parliament. Such a change is, at best, unnecessary and at
Government Orders
worst highly dangerous and open to abuse by the present and future governments.
As the member for Ottawa West has indicated, what this House is allowing and what this government is doing is taking authority away from the House of Commons and putting it into regulations and through Governor in Council it can make changes to pension plans in the future. This is a very dangerous method of dealing with pension plans.
It was set out that the following were proposed to be determined by regulations. Here are the kinds of regulations we are going to be getting into when we get into this type of thing: Rate of interest on superannuate account will be done by regulations; periods of amortization, regulations again; amount of government contributions, regulations again; control of account surpluses, regulations again; general authority to comply with the income tax whenever necessary, regulations again.
I put forward 15 amendments to take away the sweeping grab for regulatory power and restore these fundamental issues to Parliament.
The government came forward with some amendments due to NDP pressure and lobbying by federal employees' unions. The government has agreed in committee to amend the bill to restore into law the existing provisions for: calculating the rate of interest on the superannuate account, the fixed periods of amortization, guaranteed matching employer contributions and compliance with the Income Tax Act as of 1992. These issues are far from being resolved because they do need to be reviewed urgently, but the amendments to the bill at least reinstate the provisions which exist in the current acts.
Turning to indexing, despite assurances from the minister to make it absolutely clear that there would be no changes to the indexing benefits except by statute, there remains general regulatory authority for future changes to and reductions in federal government pensions.
It is a matter of trust. The legal wording of the regulatory clauses is ambiguous enough to give us reason to doubt this government's intention. Even if this government could be trusted, the point is that this law will be around long after this government. Federal employees must be protected from future abuses as well.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
Unfortunately we have many reasons to be sceptical of this government.
filming to advisory committees, the government has not consulted with the advisory committee of the Public Service Superannuation Act for five years despite the drafting of this legislation. We had a member of the advisory committee come before the committee on one of the presentations who told us that they had not met for over five years. That is shameful, with new legislation coming to the House and it has not even had discussions in an advisory capacity with the advisory committee.
(a)	adapting any provision of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act;
(b)	respecting the application of any provision of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act; and
(c)	generally as the Governor in Council may consider necessary for that purpose.
These are excessive powers being given to a group of people to sit down, to make recommendations and to make changes without even consulting the House of Commons. It is dangerous indeed.
The NDP urges the minister to fulfil his promise to consult with all stakeholders and to review the fundamental issues of rate of return, inflation protection and planned management.
The federal government is both the employer and the administrator of the pension plan of federal employees. There is a need for greater involvement of all stakeholders than in the past.
The NDP further urges the government to replace the ineffective advisory committees with a more authoritative joint management board. A management board should be comprised of equal representation of employers, employees, retirees, and at least one spousal representative. It should be chaired by an appointee of the Treasury Board. The board should be required by law to meet and to consult regularly.
Turning to government resistance, the government steadfastly refuses to establish such a board despite growing pressure. With Bill C-55 the Governor in Council appears to have even more power to change federal pensions unilaterally despite employee and retiree concerns. This is unacceptable.
The original bill threatened to take a huge step backward. As amended, the bill is less dangerous but remains regressive.
There was a clause in the bill, clause 32, which I asked to have removed. It read:
The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of ensuring the practical and fair application of this Act in any case where regulations are or have been made under subsection (1), make regulations
The early retirement for correctional workers clause is new. I commend the government for recognizing them, but it has serious flaws. The bill creates a new early retirement plan for correctional service employees in recognition of the highly stressful nature of their work. This is a good idea that the workers have demanded for many years.
However, the plan is seriously ambiguous. The government had promised that correctional workers arrangements would follow the model of the current act which prescribes the rules for early retirement of air traffic controllers. Mysteriously most details about specific arrangements for correctional workers have been left to regulations which the government has yet to reveal. Again, regulations that we know nothing about.
I have recommended that the government provide the regulations outlining the conditions of early retirement or adopt amendments which give legislative sanction to the March 8,1982 agreement reached between the union of Solicitor General employees and Correctional Services Canada. The government has refused to do either.
I also attempted to amend the bill to include former employees of the the Government of Canada who are employed by the governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This would have laid the legislative basis for future agreements between these governments and their workers.
In committee we pressed the government to raise the benefits from the current 50 per cent limit to at least 60 per cent, which is the case with many other plans such as the privileged group of RCMP senior officers and MPs. The government promised that this issue would be dealt with when the superannuation plans were reviewed. This is another urgent reason to set up the review and we look forward to the government taking action on this matter.
June 17, 1992

Turning to ex-spouses deemed dead, the bill fails to delete the clause that gives Treasury Board the power to deem ex-spouses dead for the purpose of survivors' benefits. Treasury Board argues that this is simply a way of handling cases where ex-spouses cannot be located.
However, witnesses believe the government wants to keep this clause in order to exclude former spouses from their share of death benefits based on the continuing assumption that ex-spouses have chosen to be disenfranchised, to opt out. How ridiculous can it be? This is archaic and unfair and should be removed from the legislation.
On a preferable system for prorated division, the NDP prefers a system that recognizes the period of contributions during cohabitation under the marriage contract and respects past divisions of assets under separation or divorce court settlements. The death benefit should be divided on a prorated basis to ex-spouses based on the length of contribution during years of marriage, not the moment of death.
The Canada Pension Plan provides for the length of time that the husband and spouse live and work together. It recognizes it. Why can we not do it in this piece of legislation?
Spouses at the time of death now, including post-retirement spouses, should not be allowed to be elected by the plan member as their sole beneficiary. The beneficiary should be irrevocably designed by law on a prorated basis.
With regard to MPs' pensions, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has called for this to be handled by an outside group.
I applaud her efforts to get the government to have this done by an outside group. I am not going to comment with regard to that issue. I am sure when it has studied fully it will come back with the kind of recommendations that will probably satisfy the House of Commons.
On the new pension divisions act, the bill creates a mechanism for federal employees pension credit splitting upon marriage breakdown. Former spouses will have the option of applying for a court ordered share of the plan members pension.
Government Orders
On constituency, this is an idea that has been a long time coming. The Canada Pension Plan has for years provided for the automatic division of pension credits. Since 1987 with the passage of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, federally regulated employees in the same sector have been entitled to various methods of pension credit splitting.
Now, five years later, the federal government has extended the same protection to its own employees. Divorced and separated spouses of federal employees have lobbied for years to achieve such a law.
I remind the House that older single women are the poorest citizens of Canada and one of the major reasons for this poverty is the inferior pension benefits provided to them. I commend the government for finally responding to this need.
There are problems, however. I am extremely disappointed to say that the method of the division proposed in this bill is deeply flawed and does not provide consistent treatment of federally regulated employees in the public and private sectors.
The government had the obvious models of the Canada Pension Plan and the automatic division system of the flexible provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the other model. The government chose neither.
Instead, the government decided to limit benefit distributions to one method, the much more restrictive, cumbersome and less fair lump sum transfer. This method is not easily accessible and has many built-in time delays and court costs. An evaluation of those lump sum amounts fails to take into account many important factors.
There is a better option; namely, the imposition of a trust. A trust would be imposed on the plan administrators to immediately convey an interest to a spouse on a portion of the pension. The non-member spouse would be considered to be a pension plan member who has terminated employment. There might be an option of keeping the benefits in the plan and being entitled to a deferred payment from the plan.
The federal superannuation plan would provide monthly pension cheques to the spouse when the spouse becomes eligible to receive them. Ex-spouses could pay an administration fee for the services of the trust.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
On committee amendments, the NDP had four of our amendments accepted by the government in committee. The government proposed its version, disclosure. The bill will now ensure that non-plan member spouses have equal access to their spouses' pension information. This will help former spouses to obtain a fair settlement of a pension they helped to earn.
On period of co-habitation, this ensures that the absence of a court order specifying the period of co-habitation. The minister must use provincial family law guidelines in determining the period.
On valuation regulations, two amendments provided direction to regulations of pension valuations to follow sound and fair methods.
There was another motion with regard to surpluses. I tried to have that motion introduced in the House. It was moved out of order. It was a very important motion because the issue of surpluses in the pension fund is one that should not be done by regulation. It should be done by legislation. The NDP's motions tried to identify those various areas.
In summing up, I want to say how really enthused I was as I entered into deliberations on this bill and looked at the possibilities of many changes where we could have had a management board set up at no cost to the government. A management board could have been brought together with some government people, the employees, the retirees and spousal representation so they had some input as to what was going on.
When we failed at that we tried to get them on an advisory board, but we could not even get them included on that.
It is not the intention of the government to allow input from the outside. This is clearly a regulatory bill. It has moved away from legislation into regulation and it will be regulated by the government.
Because everyone seems to feel that there is protection there with regard to indexing, let me stress that all it would take for this government to make those changes would be some changes in the Income Thx Act that would nullify benefits within the indexing of pensions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on third reading on Bill C-55 with great disappointment. I believed the government in its first communique to the people of Canada, that this bill was to correct certain anomalies and improve the
pension of our public servants, RCMP and armed forces personnel.
Those of us who have a special interest in Public Service pensions have been well aware for some time that many changes are needed to make the regime of Public Service pensions fairer, even to simply bring it in line with the rules governing other pension plans.
I want to pay special tribute to a few members of this House. It strikes me that we had a rather good contribution to the debate last Friday when the member for Restigouche-Chaleur tabled I believe about 77 Liberal amendments which were all debated but defeated by the government. I want to pay tribute also to the member for Carleton-Gloucester who has a deep interest in pensions, the member for Ottawa South and his great knowledge of the whole question, and especially to my colleague from Ottawa West who has made a good contribution to this debate today in the beginning of the debate on third reading, an important stage of any bill.
I recognize that we will have to persevere and continue in this work of ours to tiy and improve the pension plans of public servants to make them fairer. That is the theme we should tiy and development.
Unfortunately the Conservative government has not taken the opportunity to make the Public Service regime fairer. An opportunity to amend this pension regime does not come every day and one must recognize that. It is astonishing to me that the government has not taken its responsibility in this area more seriously. It gives us hope but it did not produce anything of any substantive change, in my view, to make this plan fairer.
Perhaps I should not be surprised, given the attitude this government has shown toward the Public Service of Canada. Over the last seven years it has targeted the Public Service unfairly, mostly for political gain. It has made the Public Service of Canada the scapegoat for its own mismanagement and destroyed morale in the Public Service.
The Tories have been negligent in their responsibilities. As members of the Official Opposition, my colleagues and I have done our best to counter this negligence. Our efforts were obvious in the number of our amendments in committee, which were mostly defeated by the Conservative members. We tried in the House to come back with some substantive arguments to convince the majority of this House that the report stage
June 17, 1992

could change things and make an improvement but it was to no avail.
I want to go on to explain some of the amendments that we wanted to make to the bill to make it fairer, more current, to improve the future for pensioners and to make them more confident in their ability to meet the challenges of the coming years. The government will now be giving pensioners who marry after the age of 60 the option of arranging for survivor's benefits. We wanted to amend this provision so that pensioners would not have to reduce their own pensions to do so. It was defeated.
We asked the government to provide the option of remedial action to employees to give them the same option provided to deputy heads, senior military personnel, RCMP and political appointees. We asked for fairness for most of our public servants. We asked that they be treated as well, if not better, than the leaders of the services, who are usually the big-shots in the system and have access to the regulations in the legislation and can change them to fit their purposes. However, this is not available to the average public servant. The remedial action was important and it was defeated by the government.
We asked the government to consider establishing a structured way to receive advice. God knows it needs advice. We asked that the regulations receive the approval of the pension committees of the Public Service, the RCMP, and the Canadian forces. We asked that the government listen attentively to what they had to tell them with regard to pensions.
Pensions are non-negotiable, and public servants would like to have some kind of contribution to the betterment of those plans. That was defeated.
We asked the government to consider the concerns of spouses. We have to commend groups like Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc. and Group Action for Individual Needs. Many people in my riding wrote to me and gave advice and the benefit of their experience in this field, and I thank them for those efforts. Again, the government turned a deaf ear.
Government Orders
These people to whom I have just referred have made significant contributions to their families over the years, giving up their own careers and in many cases chances for employment. Pension building was not allowed for them, and because of that they have been impoverished.
Sometimes they even sat with their spouse as representatives of this country in other countries. Many spouses choose to take their share of a pension as support rather than as an asset in order to have enforcement. These spouses should be able to apply for benefits under the new Pensions Benefit Division Act. We made an amendment, we proposed that and the government defeated it.
Another amendment my colleagues and I suggested to make this bill more fair would require that a legal spouse be informed should the other spouse, living m a different location, take on a common-law relationship. Measures can be taken to avoid having innocent people hurt by these kinds of developments. We wanted to add a clause to the bill which says that the spouse who is legally entitled to pension benefits should receive half of the contributions she and her spouse made. That is fair, and it was defeated.
We introduced an amendment to enable the government to award the amount of pension stated in a court order regarding division of assets. The bill provided that the amount of pension to be transferred was to to be 50 per cent or less, regardless of the court order. We believe the government should award what is in the court order. That was defeated.
We wanted to delete sections which gave the minister the power to declare a period as the period of co-habitation, even in the absence of a court order or spousal agreement specifying such a period. We believe that spouses should not lose part of the pension because the minister did not exercise his power to declare the period of co-habitation. Again, that was defeated.
We also wanted to delete the part of the act saying that pension credits cannot be divided in the absence of a court order or agreement. In our view, it gave the minister the power to ignore a provincial court order or agreement between spouses as to the division of benefits for unnamed reasons. This provision could be unconstitutional since marital property is under provincial jurisdiction.

Government Orders
We put forward an amendment to ensure that the government consult interested parties about regulations, in particular organizations representing spouses or former spouses. Again, that was defeated.
Did the government listen to suggestions made by us in committee with an open mind? Did it agree that fairness is an objective that we should all seek? It would appear not, since it defeated all of our amendments and all the amendments that were proposed by the witnesses.
We called on the government to bring the Public Service pension regime into line with the standards established by the pension benefits standards legislation, introduced in 1985 by this government.
We told it: "Abide by the law, abide by your own standards that you imposed upon the private sector". The pension benefits standards legislation introduced in 1985 established the minimum standards that private sector employers have to honour in managing their employee pension plans. One of the main provisions of the pension benefit standards legislation was to ensure that private sector employers observe the 1966 Canada Pension Plan rules regarding widows' pensions. These rules state that widows must receive a minimum 60 per cent pension. This has been part of our law for 25 years under the CPP. It became a requirement for private pension plans five years ago.
However, under the Public Service pension regime widows receive 50 per cent. Bill C-55 makes no effort to change this. Are the Tories concerned about the large number of older women in Canada living in poverty? Why is it that a public servant is entitled to only 50 per cent and all the others are entitled to 60 per cent by legislation?
It is clear to me that the government should treat its own employees according to the rules it has established for other pension plans. It is only fair to do so.
In 1985 the President of the Treasury Board said the Public Service pension regime would meet the rules of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I was here when that statement was made. Why did it not happen? Why can't this Conservative government be fair to its own public servants? It is no wonder that many public servants are suspicious of the government's intentions
regarding their futures and their pensions, and have serious hesitations about this legislation.
Public servants do not trust the government's intentions. Many are worried about the government's management of their own pension fund. Some even leave the Public Service before their pension fund is "locked in", so they can cash it out because they do not trust the government.
Once again, in the management of this pension plan the government does not follow the rules it has established for other pension plans.
The most recent report of the Auditor General sheds light on this issue. It notes that the four key standards established by the Pension Benefits Standards Act are relevant to the Public Service pension regime. Those four conditions are:
1.	An employer ensures that the pension fund moneys are held in trust for the members and former members of the pension plans;
2.	A pension fund shall be administered by a board of trustees pension committee, one member of which shall be a representative of the employees;
3.	The administrator shall have a clear fiduciary responsibility for the fund;
4.	The fund shall be prudently invested.
These four criteria do not apply to Public Service funds.
The report notes that these standards are "intended to protect the interests of plan members by ensuring that meeting pension promises is not dependent on the good will of employers". This government acts as plan sponsor, custodian, trustee, administrator and investment policy maker for its Public Service pension fund. This violates the standards established by the Pension Standards Benefit Act, an act of this Parliament, a bill of that government and it does not follow it.
The government borrows from the pension fund to finance its own needs at rates it sets itself. The member from Ottawa West mentioned the amount. It is above $71 billion. These rates are below what other pension plans earn. The difference in return, and it is not me saying it, Mr. Speaker, it is the Auditor General of Canada, the bookkeeper of this country who says it, has varied on average from 1.5 per cent to 2.3 per cent between 1959 and 1990 from plans which were market invested.
June 17, 1992

Furthermore, the government's largest internal borrowings are from the pension fund. As of the end of 1989-90, $71 billion was owed to the pension accounts by the Government of Canada. It is obvious that the government is in conflict of interest. It should be prudently managing the Public Service pension fund, but it wants to minimize the cost of its borrowing. Why would it pay a higher rate of return for the money it borrows from the Public Service pension funds when it is obliged to minimize its borrowing costs.
Under Bill C-55, the government proposes that the minister alone shall decide how much the government will contribute to the various pension plans, what rates of interest it will pay and that this will be done through regulation. Will the government consult the employees about this? Past experience tells us that it will not. This bill basically allows a government to reduce its deficit in the short term, but prepares the way for a much larger deficit in the future as pension obligations come due. A whole speech could be made on that. I have not got the time to do so today, but I will some day.

Mr. Speaker, while the negative aspects of Bill C-55 outweigh the positive ones, certain provisions do show some improvement, and I acknowledge that. Take for instance the combining of retirement benefits and supplementary benefits in the Public Service superannuation account.
At the present time, supplementary benefits are invested at a rate of interest for five years, while the superannuation account is invested based on a 20-year rate, which means that there was indeed a difference between the supplementary benefits fund and the pension fund.
Once combined, the indexing factor would apply to all Public Service pensions, which could mean an improved yield, given the more favourable rates on 20-year bonds.
Although I have some reservations about the future regulations, I am happy that employees who work 12 hours a week and more will now be allowed to contribute to the fund and entitled to pro rata benefits. Employees
Government Orders
will have the option of buying back previous years of part-time work since 1980.
On May 15, 1991,1 tabled before this House a motion to put in place for correctional staff an early retirement package similar to that of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I figured that the Canadian men and women who work in correctional services deserve to retire early if they so wish. So, I am pleased to see that Bill C-55 incorporates this objective and calls for such a package to make early retirement available to the correctional staff.
While these few provisions are positive, Bill C-55, as I said, is totally flawed. Government failed to deal with the most controversial and contentious management issues. For instance, it did not deal with the rate of return on investments in pension plans similar to those in the private sector. It did not provide for safeguards against inflation like indexation either. It did not deal with the issue of how the plan should be managed, designing a basic plan or raising surviving spouse benefits from 50 to 60 per cent.
This bill is a real disappointment for us. Instead, the Conservative government has given itself many regulatory powers. You only have to flip through the bill to recognize that a lot of things in it are not right. In fact, one of the more scary provisions of the bill provides that the provisions of the regulations will prevail in the event of inconsistencies between the act and its regulations. This sets a dangerous precedent for any other future pieces of legislation. Some will even say that it is ultra vires, undemocratic and contrary to the Constitution. I am going to read Section 80(3) which is as follows:
(3) In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this Act or any other regulations made under this Act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
Laws are made here, in this Parliament, not through regulations. We are opposed to this provision which intends to change the way we deal with pensions. In view of the negative aspects of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the member's time has expired.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to this debate today and at report stage on Friday. I find it extremely informative.
I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to have a public meeting on Public Service issues in my constituency of Edmonton Southwest. Prior to doing so I consulted with Mr. Daryl Bean, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Iris Craig of the Professional Institute of the Public Service and of course with Mr. John Edwards of PS2000.
My objective was to inform myself on Public Service issues. It became very clear that there was a fair amount of interest and an alarming amount of misinformation about the provisions of Bill C-55.1 think the debate and the record of the debate will in some cases have clarified that and in some cases, without naming the sources of the confusion, have confused the issue.
The objective of the bill of course is to bring Public Service and members of Parliament pensions in line with the requirements of the Income Ikx Act. That is truly the objective of the bill. There are those, and I do not fault them for their motives, who have sought to have the bill reach out beyond its own capacity to include other areas of operation of pensions, some worthy and some questionable.
The President of the Treasury Board gave an undertaking on Thursday last which I think is a comfort to all Canadians; that is that the whole question of pensions of members of Parliament will be referred to an outside committee for review and recommendations. This move I think is overdue. I am pleased that the President of the Treasury Board has agreed to it at this time. He had given some earlier indications that he would be prepared to do it, but he made the formal undertaking last Thursday.
That will have the effect of sending a message to the Canadian public that we do not think we are above the law or we do not think that we are in a position to always operate without some other input. I have found it interesting that many critics of MPs' pensions who have been stimulated by the ads of the National Citizens' Coalition, which my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-
Russell referred to the other day in debate, have been badly misinformed.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of the merits of that scheme or the lack of merit of the scheme, there is a basic question that remains in the minds of the Canadian public. That is, how is it you folks can deal with these matters on your own without some other input, and how is it that it can happen regardless of the merits?
Mr. Summerville in his ads of course does not point out that the scheme has been in place since 1952 and in its present form since 1972. He seems to indicate it is something that has been foisted recently upon the Canadian public.
Regardless of those facts, the review will begin and all of us, regardless of party and regardless of our approach to the issue, will welcome that review.
The debate is proceeding rather well and I do not propose to intervene much longer other than to move:
That the question be now put.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the government is at it again. We now have a motion that the question now be put. That prevents any amendment from anyone in this House to be put once this is adopted. The government is imposing closure on pension plans. That is what it is doing. It is trying to prevent the democratic expression of this House on matters of great importance to many of us. I find that absolutely abhorrent.
I see the government Whip laughing. Maybe he will want to speak in this debate. He knows a lot about pension plans and I would like to hear him defend the government on this issue. I know him to be a fair man and being a fair man he will have a hard time defending this legislation.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a simple question. Why does this government-and he represents government-exclude itself, exempt itself, from the standards established by the government under the pension benefits standards legislation passed five years ago?
What has the government got against fairness? Why is the government saying to Canadians: Do as I say, not as I do? Why is this parliamentary secretary at this time
June 17, 1992

cutting off debate-he knows he is doing it-to prevent his own members from explaining, defending, and possibly even convincing some people as to the merits of the government continuing its unfair campaign against the pension plans of public servants? What has the government got against Canadians?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, may I have an opportunity to respond to the question?


An hon. member:: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order after the parliamentary secretary finishes his comment.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: It is my understanding we are now debating the motion which I just moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is just the questions and comments on the speech. I have not put the question.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, to respond to my hon. friend's question and his comment and for the benefit of the public which is watching, the motion I moved does not cut off debate. The debate proceeds. There will be a great many opportunities for contributions to the debate. The hon. member has just made a worth-while one himself, one with which I do not agree, but one which is nonetheless worth while.
He asked why the government excludes itself from the Pension Benefits Standards Act? My friend will find the provisions of Public Service pensions stand up well against those within the federal domain, which are outside the Public Service, and any fair and any disinterested test would bear that out.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have been here all afternoon and I certainly share the quite proper indignation of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has come into a new job and has been doing very well. He had very diplomatic language at the start as he led to the blunderbuss that he just loaded on to the floor of this House with that type of motion after four speakers, knowing full well there are many other members with a great constituency of federal public servants who want to contribute to this debate. He also knows full well that on the main issues of this thing he is trying to sugar-coat the issue that these are simply
Government Orders
amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is part of the problem.
The hon. member is not a stupid man although he has done a very stupid thing for his own credibility in trying to cut off debate now because of the interest of summer recess or whatever. He is a very intelligent man ordinarily. When there are serious questions to raise on this, how can the parliamentary suggest-I think his discipline was broadcasting-with all the best intentions of letters from the President of the Treasury Board, that there is going to be this type of discussion or there is going to be this type of study?
We already heard from the member from Kootenay East that it has been seven years since the advisory committee on the superannuation fund met. In first-year law I found out, and I defy the parliamentary secretary to challenge this, that regardless of the best intention, a ministerial statement, even in the House, is not worth the price of the paper in a legal sense until it is put into some form of regulation or legislation.
As the parliamentary secretary well knew, I had a motion on the two things that interested me fundamentally. The member from Ottawa West canvassed the history of this legislation in a most inclusive and objective manner, pointing out the pluses and the minuses. The hon. member for Kootenay East pointed out some pluses. There are two fundamental things.
I know the parliamentary secretary wants to do well in his new job and is going to try to uplift the standards of the public about this institution, but by cutting off debate with that motion he has stopped any further amendments from being put forward. The fact of the matter is that one of the serious things in this bill referring to the income tax amendments are the legal opinions from the legal counsel which create a real uncertainty-that is a kind word.
When you really interpret these two letters of June 3 and 4 presented before the committee and debated in the committee, amendments by regulation on the Income Tax Act can affect the indexation of these Public Service pensions. That is something that should be properly reviewed now before this bill becomes law. It is not good enough to say there is going to be commitment to understand and have further consultations about these matters or have the stakeholders get together when we have already heard the history that they have not got together for six or seven years.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
In conclusion, because other members may want to comment, and this may not make me too popular with all members, I was away last week and I apologize for being away when this thing came up because I know things speed up here very much in the latter stages as we see the midnight sun and as summer seems to beckon. I understand that and I apologize because I knew when C-55 came that it would move fairly quickly normally. With all the tools of the government under new procedures it does move well normally. This debate should move pretty normally tonight and have the full expression of members.
I got my ire up when I read Hansard on Friday. This great House of Commons is exposed to public odium. We have the courage and intestinal fortitude to do so many things affecting so many other people. This bill affects all the public servants. It is the bible for the Public Service from coast to coast. It may seem pretty diy and pedantic but not to the RCMP, the armed services and the federal Public Services from coast to coast. I wanted to participate in this debate to show that it is just not the Public Service around the Ottawa area but that there are public servants from coast to coast affected by this bill. I have not received so much mail on an issue as this bill which is 159 pages. You are going to cut off debate after three speakers here in report stage.
I apologize to my constituents that I was away on Friday, but I was not prepared to accept what happened on Friday, after Private Members' Hour at three o'clock, when the House was even more empty than it is right now.
Under extended hours the House continued and I compliment the government for its Machiavellian delight and success in coming to some of the controversial issues in this bill, particularly members' salaries and pensions. It only takes five members to force a vote. We had five members stand to extend rights to the gay community. For those interested in that, it is a controversial subject and I give full credit to the member for Burnaby-Kingsway for having the honesty and the persistence in the things he believes in to force a vote for the provisions for the gay community. We had other amendments on which we forced a vote on things affecting members, Parliament and the Public Service.
I got my ire up and decided I was going to participate in this debate and do anything I could procedurally to force a vote. I really am beyond it because of time and because of age and the years I have been here. I felt that this House of Commons had to stand up for once and face the issue the hon. parliamentary secretary talks about. I do not care how well-intentioned the President of Privy Council is, whomever he may be. I accept the word of my hon. parliamentary secretary.
I could not believe how the leader of the NDP got seduced by these letters of intent from the President of the Treasury Board saying that Treasury Board was going to look after members' salaries and vesting and doubledipping later in the day.
We could not get five members to force a vote on some very good amendments by the member for Don Valley East and Edmonton Southeast. I was not here and for that I apologize.
On Monday night when we had all those votes at least it would have pin-pointed where members stood.
I can argue about pensions. Frankly, there has been a lot of misinformation on pensions. I am a person from a family in which a man put 40 years in public life and thank God Prime Minister Pearson got widows involved in the pensions for members. Therefore my mother got a pension of $104. In my riding there has not been a pension for members for 47 years.
There is a Liberal member who sits pretty close to me from a riding in which there has not been a member's pension for 50 years because the members keep getting defeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have an opportunity to debate.


An hon. member:: Debate, not put motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that is not possible. I would like to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to rebut the hon. member's statement and then carry on with debate because we have now passed the time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would like the opportunity for an important debate in this Chamber for the next few hours because the government is going to move amendments and force the issue and we know the government has the numbers and all government members have stood. You cannot accept double-dipping. You can make an argument for pensions.
June 17, 1992

With all seriousness, I really am disappointed that the parliamentary secretary has moved this motion. He was quite right, the debate was moving along. It was not going to get hung up. If I had made a motion which was going to be in order, we would have voted some time. Members could have chosen how to vote. You would not have cut the thing off.
Is the parliamentary secretary prepared to stake his parliamentary seat on the commitment in the letter I have not read yet between the President of the Treasury Board and the leader of the NDP that this enquiry into member's salaries, be it vesting or double-dipping and all the other ramifications, will start? There is no criteria set for the enquiry by the way; no time limit, no notice of who will be on the enquiry. Will he stake his seat that it is going to start by Labour Day?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the last question put by my friend, I do not believe that the President of the Treasury Board did stipulate a date but he has made a commitment. He is an honourable man and I believe that commitment will be carried out. I am sure my friend would agree that the commitment will be carried out.
With regard to the question of amendments before us, it is not true that amendments have been choked off in this debate. There have been more than 100 amendments put forward and debated during the course of the study of this bill at report stage and I am not sure how many dozens of amendments at committee stage.
The debate is not being cut off. It is important that the public of Canada realize that this debate can continue until 10 o'clock tonight. There is no question of that. In fact, because of the motion that I put, it frees up members who have spoken to speak again. That is a marvellous liberty which has now been extended to the House. I just wanted to set the record straight.
I am sure my friend, who had a distinguished career in the law-I knew him in Vancouver when he was in the pursuit of that profession-and has served in this House for 27 years now with great distinction, would not want to leave an incorrect impression with the public of Canada.
Government Orders


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Because of the exchange that took place I wonder if I could have the consent of the House to ask a short question. I did not have a chance for a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will have a lot of speakers here today and we had pretty close to 15 minutes in questions and comments. I had better just say no at this stage but I will ask for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no unanimous consent.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that debate is continuing and that I will have an opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-55 which is the Public Service pension reform bill. For a few minutes I must admit it looked very tenuous as to whether I was going to be able to achieve this.
Bill C-55 is a very large, technical omnibus bill that will amend five pieces of federal legislation which deal with federal pensions. The first one is the Public Service Superannuation Act which is the pension plan that currently covers approximately 312,000 federal government employees from every province and territory in this country; the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act which covers nearly 88,000 Armed Forces members; the RCMP Superannuation Act which covers some
20,000	RCMP members; the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act which covers the pension plan for members and senators and the Pensions Division Benefits Act which provides for the division of benefits if a marriage or common law relationship breaks down.
This bill would also enact two new acts, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act.
There are two main thrusts to this legislation, the first being the technical changes to ensure that federal pension plans comply with the new Income Thx Act; second, long-standing fairness issues such as pension credit splitting on marriage breakdown, allowing parttime employees to contribute to the pension plan, improving the leave without pay provision vis-a-vis

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
pension contributions and an early retirement program for correctional service officers.
We have long recognized that this legislation would bring a few minor improvements to the Public Service plan. We cautiously supported it at second reading in February in order that a detailed study in committee could be undertaken. However, we in opposition have realized after close study that there is far more that is negative than positive and that Bill C-55 contains major flaws.
I might add at this point that this bill probably has created more letter writing and more phone calls to my office than any bill that has come before us for quite a number of months. Obviously it is of great concern to many people.
I have received dozens of phone calls and letters from constituents in Nepean and not one person, I might add, supported this bill. Many were concerned that this legislation as it now stands would give the government the power to change critical financial aspects of pension management by regulation instead of legislation.
Does the government understand the significance of this? Does it think that Canadians will not know the difference? It means that major policy decisions will now be removed from the realm of this Parliament. It means that the government will not be accountable to the people of Canada and that secret deals can very well be made, but I would certainly hope not. It is an infringement on one's democratic rights.
The government says we should just trust it and it will look out for the rights of pensioners. Well, I think we have all seen too many things in this House and therefore a great number of Canadians no longer trust this government.
If it were really going to do what is right, it would enshrine the management of pensions in legislation. Yet it refuses to do this.
During committee stage, opposition members listened to countless witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee. All proposed reasonable changes to the legislation, and yet the government has chosen not to listen to any of them.
I just wish that I had the opportunity or the time allocation to comment on all the wonderful changes,
reasonable changes, that many people had requested. One of the most often requested changes, and I will quote from one person's letter, is this:
I do wish to stress that the benefits provided for in Bill C-55 should be preserved so that all financial management of it be delayed with current financial benefits being protected until a proper management board is established. This will ensure that amendments receive fair and complete review by all parties.
Furthermore, the bill should be amended to include all the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act as is required of other pension funds in the civilian sector.
That is from a resident of my riding, Mr. Robert Black. Many, many other people said something similar along that line.
The government has hardly moved on the legislation at all since it was tabled in February. There has been slight movement, but very very slight. It is more interested in pushing through a bill, any bill, than it is in ensuring good governance.
The reality of Bill C-55 is that it is flawed, and the portions that may be beneficial are too little and too late.
Over the past decade two parliamentary committees have examined pension reform from the point of view of the adequacy of public and private sector plans, to meet the retirement needs of Canadians, and from the perspective of equality rights established in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Legislative changes arising from the reports of these committees have been made to the Canada and Quebec pension plans and to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which defines minimum standards for federally-regulated employers.
Bill C-55 addresses to some degree the following outstanding equality issues:
It provides for splitting of pension credits on the breakdown of a marriage or common-law relationship.
Current legislation does not allow for the splitting of pension credits, so the new bill would permit the division of a plan member's pension benefits at source. That obviously is a good move.
A spousal agreement or court order would be required providing for the division of the benefits. Up to 50 per cent of the credits would be transferred to a retirement savings vehicle for the spouse, and the plan member's benefits would be adjusted accordingly.
June 17, 1992

CPP provides for the automatic splitting of pension benefits at source. The government has a report in hand in 1983 entitled Report of the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform. It recommended that this be extended to Public Service pensions.
While the provisions in Bill C-55 are an improvement over the current legislation, a number of problems are not resolved by this bill.
It places a portion of the pension benefit under the direct control of the ex-spouse, rather than having to rely on the good will of the former spouse to make pension payments every month. For example, the pension is split by valuing the contributions at the time of the divorce. The ex-spouse receives the value of the plan at that time. As a result, the only increase in value from the time of the divorce to the time of retirement will be what interest it earns in a retirement savings vehicle, such as an RRSP.
As pensions are based on the best six years of service, the final value of the pension benefit payable to the ex-spouse on retirement will likely not even come close to the value that the contributor spouse will receive.
Moreover, the value of the ex-spouse's pension benefit will not benefit from continued government contributions over the years. Whatever the value of the benefit at the time of the divorce is, it will not increase in those years.
With regard to survivor pensions in the private sector, a pension benefit standards bill introduced in 1985 ensured that widows would be provided with 60 per cent of pension benefits. This minimum standard is observed in the MPs' pension plan but not in plans that apply to members in the civilian Public Service, the Armed Forces, and the RCMP. These plans only provide 50 per cent widows pensions as they have over the last 40 years.
This government has tried to sell this bill as legislation which addresses several longstanding fairness issues. If ever there was such an issue, the survivors benefits should be considered so.
This provision has existed in the Canada Pension Plan for over 25 years. It now exists in the MPs' pension plan and was made a mandatory requirement for private sector pension plans over five years ago. Survivors of public servants should be afforded the same treatment as those in the private sector.
Government Orders
Bill C-55 also addresses the issue of pension coverage for part-time employees. Currently employees who work less than 30 hours a week cannot pay into a pension plan and therefore cannot draw a pension when they retire. Bill C-55 changes this. Employees will now have the option of buying back previous years of part-time service as far back as 1980. All current and future part-time employees will be required to pay into the pension plan.
Coverage for part-time employees was recommended in Equality for All, and the report of the parliamentary task force on pension reform. In short, it is an item whose time has come. However, there is concern that forcing part-timers into buying in could cause financial hardship for some. It should be optional.
There are several areas this bill does not cover: the rate of return of pension plan investments comparable to private sector plans; the future security of inflation protection arrangements, or indexing; plan management; increasing survivor benefits from 50 per cent to 60 per cent as in CPP and MPs pension benefits and consistent with recommendation 6.9 of the parliamentary task force on pension reform in 1983; several outstanding issues surrounding pension entitlements of divorced and separated spouses; disclosure of information relevant to the member's plan.
In 1991 the government announced its intention to conduct a review in 1992 which it claimed would address most of the above issues not covered in the current legislation. Further legislation would likely follow the review. The government has been promising a review since 1987, yet its pension advisory committee has not met since 1987, and that is disgraceful. This Bill C-55 was tabled without consultation and the government has made every effort to push it through with the minimum of discussion. I think all members on this side of the House have spoken of this disgraceful action.
The process has been shrouded in secrecy and confusion. The government would like to see major policy decisions removed from the realm of Parliament and placed in the backrooms of the Treasury Board with its push for regulatory powers.
In my last few minutes I would like to add that this bill is probably going to create more of what I would call pork-barreling, patronage, call it whatever nice word you want to call it, than we have seen in a good many years within the Public Service.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
I think that we have been fortunate in Canada to have had probably one of the best public services in the world and we should all be veiy proud of that.
It is a shame that the merit system is going to be pushed aside and that managers will have the right to appoint whomever they wish to appoint. This concerns a great number of people in this area and it is a veiy regressive step.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am a little calmer after the motion of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to have the question put which in effect lets us continue to debate until time runs out at 10 p.m. but no motions can be made, even at third reading.
I just want to dwell on that very briefly because now it is done, and I compliment him in a back-handed way because he certainly cut me off at the pass. I certainly intended to move a motion that I think would have been acceptable to the Chair.
I had some assistance with the motion to recommit Bill C-55 to the committee and reconstitute the committee for many of the same reasons that members who have already spoken on the bill have mentioned.
One of the reasons is this very question of indexation of pensions. Bill C-55, 159 pages with schedules, is in effect the bible for federal public servants, RCMP officers, and people in the military. It makes for a very dry and pedantic discussion here in the House of Commons, but it affects the monthly cheque that goes out to thousands and thousands of Canadians.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader came into this House with a suspicion that some of us were going to move an amendment, and he asked me if I was going to move an amendment, and within two minutes he caught the eye of the Speaker. After a nice little address for three minutes he put his motion, which procedurally cuts off any possibility of moving an amendment, a reasoned amendment or a recommital to a committee, which was what I was going to do. It should be done for the reasons mentioned here already by members who know more about the bill than I.
In terms of cutting off debate on third reading he said that the debate was proceeding nicely. Yes, there was a legislative committee that worked on it for a few days. It just came from the legislative committee last week and last Friday afternoon Bill C-55 came onto the floor.
We are under extended hours and on Friday afternoon, after private members' hour at 3 p.m., the debate started to peter out. Questions were put on a lot of the motions at report stage. On Monday of this week we voted. We were going to vote for many hours, and we did vote on many amendments. I think there were 37.
On something so complicated as a pension bill affecting all federal public servants, military and the police, to debate it in this House, after committee, on Friday and Monday, with the votes on Monday night, have third reading today, and then after four speakers move to put the question is really unfortunate.
In effect it means the guillotine is going to drop at 10 p.m.
I said earlier that I have been surprised at how many letters I have received from concerned public servants. The public servant has not been worried about the members' pensions, it is the public that wonders about the members' pensions.
This great institution, the House of Commons, could not even get five members last Friday to stand to force a vote on several reasonable amendments on members' pensions, whether vested too soon or double-dipping.
We can argue about vesting too soon, but there is not any plausible explanation and excuse for the double-dipping that we all know about. I am not going to mention names but I could mention many people who have sat in this House with distinction.
Let us leave the House. My amendment and the amendments from the hon. members for Don Valley East and Edmonton Southeast just affected members of Parliament, not the whole Public Service.
Let us leave the House of Commons, this odious place where everyone thinks we are the bad boys, and let us examine the next ex-president of the Privy Council who is evidently going to become the president of Canadian National. We all know roughly what the president of Canadian National gets, $200,000 or $300,000-plus dollars.
June 17, 1992

I am sure that the pension the president of the Privy Council has earned is very substantial.
If we are going to get into double-dipping-and that is more than what the President of the Treasury Board said in a letter that was swallowed by the leader of the NDP about reviewing members' pensions, then get into it for all public servants.
Whether we are talking about Erik Nielsen, Ed Broad-bent or Ian Deans, we are talking about Canadians who have served with distinction in the House of Commons, but they have all double-dipped. We have judges in the Federal Court who have double-dipped.
That is completely unacceptable because members get good pensions now. Therefore, they should not be getting pensions and full salaries from jobs taken with the federal government after they retire from here. That is completely wrong.
If there had been a vote on those amendments, it would have given some direction to this unnamed committee which had no criteria set up, no dates for holding hearings. Yet this was the plausible thing that put all members who were nervous about the issue off the issue. We could not even get five members to stand and force a vote on the amendments that were properly moved by members.
I compliment my friend and colleague, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway. He quite properly had amendments to extend pension benefits to the gay community. He has been honest and persistent in that and he has the human rights legislation very much on his side in many ways and there were five members to stand for that. There were five members to stand for a lot of other amendments.
It was a sad commentary on this House of Commons when we had amendments on our own pensions, which were in order, moved by a couple of members of Parliament. With all the discussion and all the nervousness that invoked and all the embarrassment that it may have caused and certainly the scorn that it could create in the public domain, we could not get five timorous mice to stand in their places. They scurried away as though the old Hallowe'en were over.
I give full credit to the government. It knows the rules. I confess, I was not here. I confess my absence, not that it
Government Orders
would have made much of a difference. It would have made a difference in that at least I would have asked a couple of members to stay around.
After Private Members' Hour on Friday at three o'clock, most members know that is the end of the sitting, but not in extended hours. The Speaker was in the Chair doing his duty and it was done very well. That is all I can say about that.
I am sorry, my amendment would have been to recommit that issue along with the whole question of indexation, which is the main question concerning the public servants. It would have recommitted it to the committee. Certainly, a strong vote from the House would have given direction to this vague inquiry that the President of the Treasury Board says he is going to commit someone to.
I say this kindly because I believe the minister is most likely sincere. I believe the parliamentary secretary is sincere. But we deal in realities here in this world of hard knocks in politics and government. The reality is a letter from a minister which is not worth the paper it is written on in a legal sense. It does not bind anybody. That is learned in the first year of the legislation. Do not take anything by print or by word unless it is put in the regulations or in the law.
Who knows who will be the next President of the Treasury Board? Certainly after an election there will be a change and there could be changes even before then. Then we will go through the hocus-pocus again.
It was a great way to take off. I just could not believe listening to the debate here on Monday and having friends on my left praise their leader for accepting this letter and for getting all members off the hook on something that has caused a little concern in the country about the fat cat members and their own pensions. We can always talk about and solve other people's problems but we do not want to touch our own.
That is enough on pensions. I have been forestalled on my motion. I do not know how much more time I have.
The member for Ottawa West, in her review of this bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition made one of the better speeches on a complicated bill that I have heard in this House in the years I have been a member. Who knows about pensions? Who knows about indexing, payments and interest? She went through it very well in

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
an even manner, pointing out some pluses and also raising some questions.
My concern and my constituents' concerns are not funny. It is not funny. It is rather horrible that in effect through this bill there can be regulations under the Income Tax Act about special benefits and by changing those regulations the indexation of members' pensions under the Public Service Act can be changed because that is a special benefit.
This caused great concern in the committee, as it should have. This is why Daiyl Bean and the Public Service Alliance and many other Public Service associations said: "Hey, this bill is going to attack the indexation feature of Public Service pensions". Certainly, if the indexation of members' pensions were being attacked we certainly would be a little more concerned.
I know the member for Kootenay East was a very able and consistent member on the committee. I read much of the testimony of the committee. If there is any question about this indexation and why the Public Service should be concerned, it is that the committee came up with the question there were some amendments that were turned down by the government, again with assurances. I understand from the committee evidence that the government was going to take a look to see if there was an amendment from government to clarify this issue of whether indexation could be affected by a change in regulations of the Income Tkx Act.
Without getting too rhetorical in the time I have left I just want to read into the record some letters I have read as a lawyer and I must say I reread the first one because I could not fully understand it. The man who wrote the first one wrote another the day after, trying to give his opinion to the committee on the implications of clause 50 of the bill involving indexation.
In a letter dated June 3,1992, R. R. Walsh, the general legislative counsel of the House of Commons, wrote about Bill C-55 to Mr. Farrell as follows:
At its last meeting on May 21, 1992, the Committee asked that I
provide an opinion in respect of the Government's motion No. G2A
amending the proposed section 71 found in clause 30 of Bill C-55.
Similar amendments are proposed for clause 58 (motion No. G3A)
and clause 80 (Motion No. G4A). The Public Service Alliance of Canada has criticized the proposed amendments and I was asked to consider PSAC's concerns as well.
At committee, Mr. Macdonald explained that the proposed amendment clarifies that the power to make compliance regulations under section 71, PSSA, would be limited to prospective changes and would not allow retrospective changes in relation to what employees had already earned. It seems to me Mr. Macdonald is correct in his view that the proposed amendment would prevent "retrospective" compliance regulations.
Those are regulations that might affect the past.
In his letter of April 14th, however, the Minister assured committee members -
Another assurance by the minister, I guess by verbal commitment or by letter.
-that the Government's amendment to the proposed section 71, PSSA, would make it "absolutely clear" that there will be no change to the indexing of benefits "except by statute" (statutory amendment). Tb this end, the proposed section 71 as amended by motion No. G2 allows compliance regulations only in relation to section 147.1 of the Income Thx Act and Part LXXXV of the Income Tkx Regulations, as they read on January 15, 1992.
Subsection 147.1(2) of the Income Tkx Act sets out the rules applicable for registration of pension plans, one of which is that a plan comply with prescribed conditions for registration. Part LXXXV of the Income Tkx Regulations allows as "permissible benefits" periodic cost of living adjustments based on increases in the Consumer Price Index. If, after January 15, 1992, the Income Thx Regulations were amended to remove indexation as a permissible benefit, the amendment could not be carried over to PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA by means of a compliance regulation because a compliance regulation could only be made in respect of the Income Tkx Regulations as they read on January 15, 1992.
That is the guts of it but I am going to continue to read the letter because my time is almost over.
According to its news release of May 11, 1992, PSAC says the Government's amendments do not make it "absolutely clear" that there will be no change to the indexing provisions "except by statute" (statutory amendment). PSAC suggests that motion No. G2A be worded to read as applicable to any pension, annual allowance, etc., that is payable to any person to whom PSSA applies. [PSAC also suggests a new subsection (6) requiring consultation with the Advisory Committee.]
It is not clear that amendment of the PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA would be required to reduce or remove indexation as a permissible benefit, notwithstanding motions No. G2 and No. G2A. An amendment of the Income Tax Regulations by the Governor in Council (without the involvement of Parliament), made applicable to all pension plans, might be sufficient to reduce or remove indexation without amendment of the statutes governing the plans.

I am going to conclude this letter:
Perhaps Government legal experts in the areas of income tax and pensions could shed some light on whether or not this is possible under the Income Thx Act or PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA. It seems to me that it would be, but I stand to be corrected should legal counsel having expertise in these areas demonstrate the contrary.
That is the letter of June 3 trying to advise the committee on this veiy technical and important point affecting indexing of pensions of public servants and cannot be affected by regulations in the Income Thx Act changing special benefits.
As I read that, the legal counsel advising the court, which was discussed by the members of the committee, could very well affect the indexation.
The interesting thing, and I would like to be able to file this, the very next day, June 4, the same legal counsel wrote a clarifying letter which was a little shorter but I guess I do not have time to read it.
In effect it clarifies it. But then it says it may not do it for the pension plans already in place but it could very well affect pension plans in the future. It is a shorter letter and is not so technical, so I will read it.
It was written June 4, the day after the first one, trying to help the committee. It pin-points the confusion of something that is so fundamental and important:
Dear Mr. Farrell:
I write to clarify my letter of June 3,1992 in respect of Clause 30. A Justice lawyer acting for the Treasury Board spoke with me earlier today and it would appear that some clarification is required in respect of the last paragraph of my earlier letter.
When I said in my earlier letter that it is not clear that amendment of PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA would be required to reduce or remove indexation as a permissible benefit, I was referring to permissible benefits as they are known under the Income Tax Regulations for purposes of the Income Thx Act. The amendment that I suggested could be made to the Income Tax Regulations, applicable to all pension plans, would only be applicable for income tax purposes. Such amendment would not and could not have the effect of removing or reducing indexation as a benefit under PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA.
Indexation benefits have been placed in PSSA (proposed s.69 in cl. 30), CFSA (proposed s.78 in cl. 58) and RCMPSA (proposed s.39 in cl.80) and a regulation under the proposed section 71 in Clause 30 could not remove or reduce the benefits available under these
Government Orders
Acts. Removal or reduction of indexation as provided under PSSA/CFSA/RCMPSA could only be effected by amendment of the relevant statute by Parliament.
My earlier opinion meant to indicate that the removal or reduction of indexation as a permissible benefit under the Income Thx Regulations for purposes of the Income Thx Act could possibly be effected by an amendment to the Income Thx Regulations. This amendment, however, would only affect the income tax position of the pension plan and would not directly remove or reduce the indexation benefits as benefits under the pension plans.
I trust this further clarification will assist the Committee in its consideration of the relevant clauses of the Bill.
We can see the problem of something so fundamental as indexation. As I read the committee, it was supposed to get further clarification from an amendment from the government on this important subject but it did not get it. That is another good reason why we should vote-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments, the hon. member for Halifax West and then I will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks made by my good friend and colleague from Annapolis Valley- Hants.
I hope he will not lose sight of the general principle involved in this bill. I know he has dealt in the course of his speech with a number of details. I want to hear him comment on the general principle of pensions and pensions as deferred income.
The rule in Canada for many years now, over 30 years, has been that the basic pension benefits should be 70 per cent approximately of a person's income. That would allow them at the end of their working careers to maintain the standard of living for themselves and their families that they had earned over the course of their careers.
There are difficulties with time frames, whether it takes 35 years to earn that kind of benefit or some lesser period of time. The case can easily be made for a member of Parliament or an elected person that they do not have the opportunity to serve for that normal career period of 35 years. They go from one career to another career.

Government Orders
It is not only members of the House of Commons, it is members of the legislatures; provincial magistrates in the province of Nova Scotia earn a full pension after 15 years.
I want to ask my colleague if he thinks it is fair that members of Parliament after a period of service or any other person during their working career should not be able to earn a pension which will more or less allow them to maintain the standard of living they have enjoyed through their careers for themselves and for the benefit of their families.
I know he is interested and concerned about indexing and I have no disagreement with what he said.
However, I want him to focus on some of the remarks and comments that have been made by organizations like the National Citizens Coalition that focus on the most difficult of the cases and use those cases to detract from the basic idea that people, by way of deferred income, are entitled to some kind of benefit as they terminate their career and go into retirement.
I wonder if the hon. member and my good colleague is in any disagreement with the basic idea of the pension program.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank my hon. friend from Halifax West for his questions.
Earlier, in reply to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader when he moved the order to put the question so we could not put any amendments, I offered a dicta, my thoughts about the pension.
It is academic to me, in view of my time and years here, therefore I feel the same embarrassment as other members in talking about our own pensions. So I certainly am glad that the President of the Privy Council has given some indication-I wish it was a tighter and more committed indication-about just what type of inquiry, when it was going to happen and who was going to do it, rather than just a letter that was easily accepted, because we are all nervous about the issue.
Two points on members' pensions. On the question of double-dipping, there is absolutely no justifiable reason why that should be allowed to continue.
The question then is do we grandfather it? There are good people who served under certain rules, and then we retroactively try to do something. I guess this is what the inquiry is going to find out about. But certainly for future situations I think that all members who are elected should appreciate that if they get a government job after they serve in this House of Commons they are not getting their pension from the government for their House of Commons service and also a pension from whatever Crown corporation or court they may be appointed to.
I cannot find anything to justify double-dipping in pensions. I was hoping that one of the amendments that was moved by the hon. member for Don Valley East might have been put so it would have been a clear indication to this inquiry not to fool around much with that because that can be disposed of.
In terms of pensions, I said earlier that there is an argument to be made for pensions to members vesting earlier than normal pension plans. As I said, my mother was very glad that Prime Minister Pearson was around to even include widows of members, because otherwise they would not have had a pension. After 40 years of public service my mother got the grand pension of $104 a month.
I am fully aware of the concern with pensions. I think the public has been so bombarded by a lot of extreme situations, more in theory than in practice, that it automatically thinks all members are receiving pensions after six years and there are a great quantity of members out there who are drawing full pensions, which is not the reality at all. There are many ridings in which there has not been a member's pension paid for 40 to 50 years because members have been getting defeated all the time and/or they have been re-elected for quite a while and therefore pensions do not click in.
On the pension issue, that is something that certainly must be looked at. It is healthy in view of the public focus on this, the bad odium that we are all in about it, and perhaps the defensive attitude that we have about it that in effect some outside agency-I cannot think why a vote in the House of Commons would have hurt at all.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I do want to question the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants because I can understand how frustrated he is with regard to the procedure of what
June 17, 1992

happened here. However at the same time, as a member of that committee, I want to say to this member very clearly that if he had been at that committee and had seen the activity that took place and how the government conducted themselves there he would understand what happened in this House.
There were over 40 or 50 amendments put forward in committee, and each time the government's hands went up and they were defeated. There were 112 amendments that came back to this House to be debated, which we tried to get through in committee. At the same time not one government member was getting up in the House. I understand the hon. member was not here Friday because of commitments in his riding. He should take into consideration what took place in the committee and the kinds of frustrations we were going through and what went on in this House when we were debating the amendments. The government was simply not listening.
With regard to MPs' pensions, I am very proud and I take no exception to the remarks of the leader of our party. When this bill was introduced, she identified the very problems the hon. member is talking about. We called for an independent study and our leader got that in a letter from the minister. That is more than we got in all the amendments that we put forward. At least we have a letter stating that he is going to prepare an ad hoc committee and start putting the process in place.
I just want to say to the member that I understand his frustration and I fully understand the concerns that he has. I have those same concerns. I only wish the government would have listened to us, but it was not in a listening mood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has a minute to wind up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not read all the evidence of the committee, but I did read the last few days of it when committee members were moving amendments and talking about the indexing problem which produced those two letters that I read into the record. The member was there and very active in that. I also noticed the amendments that did not find favour.
As a lawyer, in terms of legislation, letters are not law or regulations so I will be a lot happier when I see the letter fleshed out giving the criteria and a time.
Government Orders
The NDP leader did make a speech and it ruffled a lot of feathers. It even ruffled a few feathers in their caucus. It certainly ruffled a lot of feathers around here because she was the first leader to come out very directly on this issue which has caused a lot of concern in the public domain. I do give his leader credit for that, but I felt members should have forced the issue a little more. I was away so I am guilty, but it would have taken five of us only to force the issue a little more. That still would not have impeded the commitment for the ad hoc inquiry if some of those amendments had carried on Friday.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, it is actually quite interesting to rise in this House and speak after the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. He was referring to MP's pensions and spoke about his father being a member of this House.
My father was also a member of this House. He retired in 1979 with a pension of $12,000 to $13,000 a year, I think it was, after 17 years of service. He had been a lawyer. He came here at about age 55. He was at the most productive period of his law practice when he gave it up to become a member of Parliament. He died a few years later so my mother's pension is half of what his was. It is not exactly a princely sum. There are other stories than the ones that David Somerville peddles across this country for his own profit.
This inquiry we are going to have hopefully will reveal to the country as a whole the full story of the issue of pensions.
It is long overdue that we have this inquiry. It is important that trust be developed in this place and that we are dealing at arm's length with these issues. It is a step forward that we are getting the inquiry referred to earlier. We, as members of Parliament, have to be prepared, along with everyone else in the country, to take a look at our working conditions. We also have to be prepared to have those undergo public scrutiny.
When I had a chance to look into the issue of members' pensions I was surprised to find two facts which you do not see in the Somerville ads: that the pensions paid out so far are more than covered by the MPs' contributions and the interest on the funds. In other words, the government's matching contributions have not so far been touched. While he tries to claim

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
that the MPs' pension fund is unfunded, in practical terms it has not been unfunded.
The second fact that is interesting is that there are only 500 to 700 people who have received pensions under the plan, most of whom are widows or spouses as well as retired MPs. The suggestion that somehow this is a terribly rich privilege, upon examination is probably not correct.
The concerns about double-dipping do need to be looked at. Examples need to be reviewed, but I also think we should keep in mind the kind of pensions the private sector pays. Some of those should be put in perspective. Not that pensions for MPs should reach those levels, but the reverse should be so; those who control private wealth in this country should not be able to vote themselves the kind of pensions they do at the expense of the consumer.
Having spoken on that issue, let me deal with the substantive issues included in this pension act and the amendments to that act. Apart from a brief reference to pensions for MPs the bill effectively deals with two or three main areas.
The first is to make substantial changes in the administration of public sector pension funds. Initially, some of those changes look to be not half bad. But on further consideration and further examination it has become clear that this government has been sold a bill of goods by Treasury Board public servants.
Government has not done its own homework in protecting the prerogative of Parliament and effectively is turning over to the government and to Treasury Board all kinds of powers which it ought not to have, given Treasury Board is not just the administrator of public funds but is also the employer of public servants. In that dual function conflict of interest is built in in respect of its duties.
It is therefore critically important that any tinkering with public sector pensions comes before Parliament so that all sides of this House and therefore the general public can have some input into those changes. Those changes should not be made behind closed doors merely by a matter of regulation without public hearing, without input.
The more we studied this bill and the more we reviewed it, we reluctantly came to the conclusion that in
public policy terms we will have to vote against the bill. We will do so reluctantly because there are some good elements in the bill.
For the first time, federal part-time workers are covered in a pension plan, although the cut-off date is arbitrary and unfair. In the post office, for example, and in other areas of the public sector there have been those working part-time for years and years. Their service in that capacity is not counted toward a part-time pension. I think the cut-off date is 1980.
Similarly, the early retirement for correction workers is evidently and clearly a good thing and needs to be adopted. On the other hand, what the government has given with one hand it has taken away with the other. It imposed a power over that early retirement plan through regulation that it ought not to have.
We clearly support the thrust of the pension splitting provisions in Schedule II of the act. I would like to use most of my remaining time on that issue.
I represent a constituency that has many military and other government retirees, many ex-spouses of those who worked in the service of Canada. Many of them have come to me and we drafted petitions which have been presented throughout the community and have been tabled in this House from time to time over the last number of months. They have come to me with letters, with accounts of the impact on their lives of the failure of this Parliament to deal fairly with ex-spouses of Public Service personnel and particularly members of the military.
Many of them have clearly given a service beyond the usual to our country. When they married someone in the military service, they undertook to travel across Canada and in fact, to many parts of the world. They tried to raise their families in two, three and four-year segments in different communities. They have suffered through the difficulties, tensions, trials and tribulations of that kind of life. Then at some point along the way, the marriage breaks down. They have been often left destitute or in difficult circumstances.
One of the difficulties they have had to face is that the pension they contributed to, which in the case of the military, the RCMP and others becomes payable on retirement, often when they are in their early 40s, mid 40s or 50s, that pension has not been available to them except occasionally through a court battle as supporter maintenance.
June 17, 1992

Yet it is a pension which the law for years has recognized that they have earned and have contributed to. In 1986, this Parliament agreed that in the case of Canada pensions, the right to a split in the pension contributions should be recognized. Now, belatedly, we are recognizing that in the case of military and other public sector pensions.
We are recognizing that in the case of a marriage breakdown, where the courts of the provincial and territorial levels have recognized the contribution, as invariably they will now do, or a separation agreement that takes that contribution into account, the minister is obliged to recognize it and to split the pension according to the contribution made during the course of the marriage.
I do not know what it is about the government that when it begins to do something right, it only does it half right. In this case, it has encumbered the pension splitting with all kinds of unnecessary difficulties. We are going to see over the months ahead case after case of unfairness because this government has simply not listened to those who have come before it and raised specific questions about the complexity of this bill.
The government has listened to the officials in Treasury Board and it has not listened to those who have lived with the problem. Amendment after amendment has been moved. The hon. member for Kootenay East has worked very very hard on this bill. Members in the Liberal Caucus have also worked on this bill. The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has introduced a private members' bill on this issue and has spoken across the length and breadth of this country on this issue. The government has not listened to a series of very practical improvements that could have been made to make this bill more fair.
For example, there will those who have separation agreements or court orders that pre-date this bill. Because no pension splitting was possible, they may not have included pension split in the separation agreement or had it included in the court order. If they cannot persuade their ex-spouse to change the separation agreement or if they are not allowed to go back to a court because of the passage of time and the issue is closed, they will not have what this Parliament says they have earned, which is a fair share of the pension.
Government Orders
It is all because the government has refused to listen. In committee it accepted a handful of amendments. Basically, it even said to one of its own ministers: "Go see Treasury Board. If you can talk Treasury Board into it then we will do it".
It is an interesting commentary on how the arteries begin closing when a government stays in office too long. This government has been in office for eight years.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Just getting started.


John F. Brewin: That is what the people of Canada are terrified about. The hon. member says that they are just getting started. Let me say to the hon. parliamentary secretary that Parliament ought to be a place where when there is a complicated bill like this, a thick bill with section after section, 159 pages of very detailed changes in pension legislation, or when members of the opposition and some members of the government themselves, including the hon. member for Don Valley East, have gone to the trouble, after consultation with Canadians who have taken an interest to this bill, to produce amendments, it is an arrogant and thoughtless government that will not stand up and at least give the Canadian people a moment's explanation as to the difficulty of the amendment. The government should explain why it cannot accept the amendments.
I think the reason the government did not stand up and try to defend its reasons for turning down the amendments is because it could not. It did not understand the amendments. It did not take the trouble to try to understand the amendments.


William James Kempling: We accepted 28.


John F. Brewin: Out of more than 150 amendments the government says it accepted 28. That means there were over 100 amendments the government did not accept. Not once did the government do the Canadian people the courtesy of explaining its reasons for not accepting even a single one of those amendments, either in committee or at report stage.
I submit again that it is because the government members responsible for this bill simply did not understand the amendments. They did not take the trouble to understand whether or not the amendments should be introduced.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
This is a complicated place. We all have areas of responsibility but those members who were on duty on these bills, who stand up and vote on these bills, have at least some responsibility to try to grasp what the amendment is about and to have someone in their caucus do Parliament and the people the courtesy of trying to deal with the substance of the amendment.
It is not just us who stand here and move these amendments. There are people who have worked days upon days on these amendments and the ideas contained within them. They reflect genuine concerns.
For example, why is it that the government has left in this bill the power of Treasury Board to deem an ex-spouse deceased when she or he is obviously very much alive and kicking? There is an iniquitous turn of phrase in this legislation, an iniquitous power that the government should have the right to deem someone dead to do them out of a survivor benefit.
That is just the language. Look at the substance of the issue on survivor's benefits. The way the law works and the government has refused to address it in this bill is that when a marriage breaks down and the member of the plan enters a new relationship and then dies, the entire survivor benefit goes to the second spouse or second partner. The original partner, who may have been with the member of the plan for years upon years upon years, who in the other parts of the bill is understood to have contributed to the pension, is given nothing by way of contribution to the survivor's benefits and often is left in destitute circumstances.
The government has refused to speak on why it will not address this deep concern of ex-spouses expressed to individual members of Parliament, expressed to committees of this House and expressed through us in the opposition in amendments and speeches we have given. The government remains silent. It is an arrogance on the part of the government that it will not speak to these concerns of the Canadian people.
We are at the final stages of this debate. This bill was introduced in March. It was moved quickly through the House and through committee and the government is moving quickly to have it given third reading.
It has refused to engage in debating the issues. It has become a captive of Treasury Board. I ask any member of the government to pick up any one of those amendments and see if he or she can see some justice or justification in the amendment. Then ask those who are responsible for pushing this bill through Parliament why they did not respond. You can count on the fact that we will be back with further amendments and further legislation to correct the errors in this bill.
This bill is going through. It will go to the Senate in the next few days and become law. It contains much that is good but it is also a flawed bill. It is flawed in the way in which it turns over to Treasury Board and to cabinet responsibilities which should properly be those of Parliament.
It is flawed in the way it has responded to the justice and the claim of those whose rights are dealt with under the bill. It is therefore a bill we will be voting against, with some reluctance because of the good that it contains.
However I say to those who have worked hard on this bill that we will be with them in keeping an eye on the administration of the bill, and see how it works out. We will ask them to keep in touch with us so that we can begin building a file for amendments and changes down the road, because as surely as we are here today the failure of the government to listen to those who came before the committee, the failure of the government to listen to those who applied their minds to this bill and spoke to the people of Canada on it, will come back to haunt this House and we will be obliged within a very short period of time to once again deal with it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Victoria on his review of the bill and some of its problems. His little vignette of history was interesting. I happened to be sitting here when his father was here, Andrew Brewin from Toronto Greenwood I believe. He was from the heartland, the core, the queen city or whatever you call Toronto. I do not know how the son got out to Victoria, but certainly having been there and practised law myself in Vancouver-he certainly saw a better way in the west and I welcome him back here to the central part.
June 17, 1992

The hon. member reviewed many sections of the bill. He mentioned how the bill had moved rather quickly and came off the platter in March. Does the member really think that a bill that has 159 pages, that is so complex, and involves the pensions of all the public servants, the RCMP and the armed services personnel of this land-it came out of committee on Friday at report stage when the Speaker gave his ruling. As a result of extended hours it continued after 3 p.m. on Friday until 5 p.m. and it picked up again on Monday. We had all the votes on Monday night, 37-some votes. Despite all those amendments we debated just part of Friday and Monday, and we are in third reading today.
Does the hon. member, with his experience and his knowledge as a lawyer, think that is a very lengthy time to consider something that is so complex?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
It gives me the opportunity to elaborate on one particular point. The short answer to his question is that the time for debate in the House itself was probably reasonable enough if the government had chosen to participate in the debate itself, although it is a long and complicated bill.
It was in committee over a few months and there were a number of hearings from interested groups, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the ex-spouses group and so forth. They tended to be hurried along. I attended a couple of the committee hearings and they packed in a lot of witnesses. They tended to be fairly cursory. They asked a few questions of the government, not very many. There was a sense that it was a treadmill that the government was trying to get through.
The larger flaw in the process, and the one the government ought to take another look at for next time and for any future bills, is that the government seems to have gotten away from the practice of producing a draft bill; maybe even turning over to a parliamentary committee at first the responsibility of drafting a bill, or at least the outlines of a bill or writing a memo to the drafters on the kinds of issues that should be covered by a bill and the positions that should be taken.
Instead, it was all done internally. The first thing that surfaced in March was this big fat bill. At that point the government was already in a defensive mode on the bill.
Government Orders
The Treasury Board officials who had overseen the drafting of it were in a defensive mode. They had to justify what they had done to their political masters. There was very little flexibility, notwithstanding the earlier intervention from the parliamentary secretary. Instead of doing what was sometimes done before of circulating a bill in the general community so that lawyers and others who had a capacity to work with the legal language, and it is very technical legal language in this bill, could work with client groups and try to work through: "This is what it means and this is what it does not mean", and then almost to engage in a process of negotiation with the drafters, that process was missed entirely.
I had a chance on one clause of the bill to try to do a subversion of that exercise. I worked a bit with one of the ministers, the parliamentary secretary and the Treasury Board officials and the drafters. We tried to work around it, but it was very hit and miss. I say the government member himself did not understand what we were talking about and was really not involved in the process. He just basically said: "Go deal with Treasury Board". The process was very flawed.
I think what the government should look at in future, when it comes up with a complicated bill like this that will have an effect on a lot of people, is circulating a draft bill and giving the community a real chance to take a look at it before it introduces it in Parliament. That would help in the process.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: I rise to speak on Bill C-55. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when this bill was initially introduced, our caucus voted in support of the bill in order to let it go to a committee so that members of the different pension plans could come forward and make their case known. Today we will not be supporting the bill for a variety of reasons.
Before I start putting forward some of the argument on why we will not support the bill, I want to talk a little bit about the idea of a pension plan. The first thing that comes to mind when we talk about pensions is our senior citizens who have built this country, who have stood by this country during the good times and bad times, those who have been loyal Canadians throughout the years, those who lived during the Depression, those who know

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
what hard work is all about, those who are not complain-ers, those who have given us this great country of ours.
Reading through the legislation as proposed, there are a number of good things that deal with their pensions, but simply put, not enough. The vast majority of our senior citizens nowadays still live below the poverty line. A lot of our senior citizens still are deprived of the many good things that other members of our community enjoy. To that extent, I believe that we still have a lot of work to do. We have to do more in order to deal with the question of unfairness.
Having said that, there are some good things in the proposal. I would like to glance through them very quickly. The members of Parliament review question is good. It will put this issue to rest. It will deal with a lot of the concerns that have been raised by those who have legitimate concerns and those who do not have legitimate concerns.
The second issue, which is combining the superannuation and the supplementary benefits for the Public Service pensions account, is a very good move on the part of the government. It ought to be commended on that.
There are other issues in the bill which are good to a large extent, for example, providing for the splitting of pension credits on the breakdown of a marriage or a common law relationship. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the current legislation does not allow for the splitting of pension credits. However, the new legislation would permit the division of a plan member's pension at source. That is not bad, with the exception of the fact that the bill will not make it automatic. If there is a disagreement of some sort, the different parties will still have to go to court. You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do how costly our justice system is.
Pension coverage for part-time employees is an excellent move. This is an excellent move. Currently part-timers are not covered. Anybody who works less than 30 hours a week cannot pay into the pension plan.
However, there are those who are on contract, those people who are hired as casuals, and there are thousands of those people in our constituencies, especially here in the national capital region and perhaps other parts of the country. Those people have been working for the government for the past seven or eight years on a contract
basis. They have absolutely no protection whatsoever. To a large extent, while all of them are thankful for the fact they are getting those ad hoc positions for a short period of time here and there for up to six months at a time, they have absolutely no protection.
Extending the option of survivor benefits to pensioners who marry after the age of 60 is also a good move. However, one would suggest that we have to look at it a little more closely to make sure it is in compliance with the charter of rights.
Another point in the legislation which is excellent is an early retirement program for correctional services officers. This is a very good initiative and it is supported by members of the plans.
Creating a supplementary death benefit is as well a good move and the government has to be commended for coming forward with it finally. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases when we talk about the legislation and what is in that particular legislation, we do not really talk about what is not in the legislation; in other words, the issues that were not covered by given legislation.
In the case of Bill C-55, I am not sure that this legislation is in compliance with the charter of rights in many aspects of it. I am not sure about the way we manage the plan, if it is really a clear-cut case where you have the government which is the employer managing the plan without the full participation of the employee. Even if there is an indirect participation of the employees in the plan, it is not done in a fashion where it is managed without government interference. In fact, many things that are under the present legislation would make any kinds of changes, any manoeuvring, done through Treasury Board and through the regulatory body rather than being done through the House of Commons. This is the highest court of the land. If the House of Commons introduced and passed legislation it should have at all times the final say in terms of what can happen to different parts and different segments of that legislation.
Future security from inflation is a protection arrangement in terms of indexing. While the bill addresses the issue, there is really no mechanism in place where one would be assured that in future all of those issues are addressed.
June 17, 1992

Also, while the bill itself has a lot of good things, it really fails to address some of the concerns of those who appeared before the committee. In particular, is man-agementable to ensure that employees and those who are benefiting from the plan are getting the maximum benefit?
Our pensioners, particularly our seniors, deserve a lot more than what we have given them in the past. We have to do our utmost to ensure that we have a program and a plan that deals with our senior citizen population's needs. By the year 2010 we are going to have a lot of seniors around. Many of us in this House will be seniors. If not we will be post-seniors. We have a program in place that addresses their concerns and their needs. It meets what they are looking for, that is to live in dignity, to have access to food and shelter, and not to be worried about what will happen to them tomorrow or the day after.
As I indicated earlier, my colleagues and I supported this bill at second reading, but we will not be supporting it at third reading. It is not because we do not support the different components of the bill but, simply put, because the government did not really do enough to address the many concerns of pensioners vis-a-vis Bill C-55.
['Translation)


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few brief comments to make on this bill. First, I have to say that I agree with the comments the hon. member for Ottawa West made in her excellent speech on all the problems civil servants and former armed forces members are facing in terms of pensions.

The points the member made with respect to fairness are worthy of being noted. I am very pleased to associate myself with them.
I want to make just a few comments, therefore, on Bill C-55. It has been the subject of a great deal of correspondence received from constituents of mine who have concerns about it either because they are presently employed in the Public Service or the Armed Forces or the RCMP, or because they have been married or are
Government Orders
married to such a person, or because they have been retired themselves.
I will make just a few comments on those points. First,
I would like to point out to the House of Commons that the 1991 report of the Auditor General of Canada had some comments to make on the federal superannuation plan. What many Canadians do not understand is that our enormous debt and deficit problems which are continual burdens on taxpayers are likewise a burden on the pension plans of the employees of the federal government. In fact the pension funds that are put aside by federal government employees are borrowed as part of the government's requirement to meet its obligations as they come due.
In his 1991 report the Auditor General made that comment by stating:
A substantial portion of the federal annual budgetary deficit is financed through internal borrowing from accounts that the government administers on behalf of third parties. The largest internal borrowing is from federal employee pension accounts. As a result, $71 billion, or about 18 per cent of the $399 billion gross public debt, was owed to employee pension accounts at the end of 1989-90.
We all know how reliable are the projections of the Department of Finance. He continued by stating:
If the Department of Finance's projections that external financing will be reduced to zero by 1994-95 are achieved, it is estimated that the amount owing to employee pension accounts will represent 23 per cent of the total public debt.
That is a very important source of funds for the federal government.
What does that mean for the owners, the employees and the future pensioners of those funds? This is the observation of the Auditor General:
Interest-credited to the pension accounts is based on the government's long-term borrowing rates. It is widely agreed that these rates are between 1 and 2 per cent lower, on average over the long term, than the rates of return earned by pension plans with marketable assets.
The result of that is the government's requirement in the future to be able to fund the pension obligations under these plans is put at risk and may result in various things: It may result in a higher government deficit in future years; it may result in a future government saying we are going to have to reduce the amount of pension benefits payable to these pensioners because the return on the plan has not been sufficient to fund it fully. I think this is scandalous.

Government Orders
The government ought to be moving forward into reliance on private sector investments to ensure that a properly managed and balanced portfolio of investments would provide Public Service pension plans as profitable as they should be to ensure their future adequate funding.
The second thing I would like to point out, especially for the benefit of Canadians who are not fully informed about the nature of the Public Service pension plan, is that it is indexed. There is a cost of living indexation to the pension benefits that are payable.
What many Canadians fail to realize is that the indexation has been contracted, paid for, by public servants. They pay an extra 1 per cent of their salaries into a supplementary benefits fund, which is the fund to provide the assets available to fund indexing of their pension plans.
Indexing is not some kind of gift from Canadians to retired public servants. Indexing is something that has been bought and paid for by public servants making additional contributions under their plans.
That being the case, it is of great concern that the regulation making authority given to the government under this bill is so broad that in fact the government can even pass regulations that are inconsistent with the act being passed by Parliament itself.
This occurs in a number of provisions of the act. One of them is on page 59 of the bill as reported. I think it is section 80 of the Canadian Armed Forces Superannuation Act. I am referring to subsection (3) as it would read if this act were passed in its present form: "In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this act or any other regulations made under this act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency".
In other words, the Governor in Council, the cabinet, can enact regulations without coming to Parliament that are inconsistent with the law being passed tonight, or whenever it is voted on, under Bill C-55. They can pass those regulations without further consultation with Parliament and even if they are inconsistent they prevail as the law.
I practised law for a reasonably long time before I came to this place. I must say I had not been aware of any other statutes that had that kind of regulation making authority built into them.
The ability to pass regulations known as subordinate legislation, subordinate because it is subordinate to the main law, normally is required to be consistent with the act or the law passed by Parliament.
I did a little research to find out whether in fact this was appropriate and legal. I discovered in an old book an old report of a British parliamentary committee on minister's powers dated April 1932 that this kind of regulation making authority has been granted in the past. It's called a Henry VIII clause, and I am quoting from the British parliamentary committee:
-because that King is regarded popularly as the impersonation of executive autocracy. Indeed it may be considered to resemble the famous Statute of Proclamations, 1539 which gave the King power to legislate by proclamation until it was repealed on Henry's death in 1547. The comparison is certainly far-fetched.
The purpose of Henry VIII was to enlarge his powers to make proclamations having the force of law. The sole purpose of Parliament on the nine occasions when it passed modem enactments was to enable minor adjustments of its own handiwork to be made for the purpose of fitting its principles into the fabric of existing legislation-
The comments of the British committee on this are quite telling. The committee says as follows:
Even though it may be admitted that Parliament itself has conferred these powers upon ministers and must be presumed to have done so with the knowledge of what it was doing, it cannot but be regarded as inconsistent with the principles of parliamentary government that the subordinate law-making authority should be given by the superior law-making authority power to amend the statute which has been passed by the superior authority.
In referring to this dusty old text of this British parliamentary committee, I want to make this point; that in modem 1992 Canada the government has no more right, in my opinion, to put forward a law that would enable cabinet to pass laws inconsistent with what Parliament has done than did Henry VIII back in the 16th century.
The fact that the President of the Treasury Board fancies himself a 20th century Henry VUI is very cold comfort to the thousands of public servants and pensioners who concern themselves with whether this government, which has done so many things behind closed doors without full consultation, which has proven itself in so many ways to be less than fully trustworthy in its administration of public issues, to trust that it is not going to turn around and put forward regulations that will end the right to indexed pensions that public servants through their own contributions have already
June 17, 1992

paid for. It should not be tolerated in a modem democracy.
We are spending a great deal of money ensuring that our democratic institutions survive. We spend a great deal of money ensuring that democracy functions in a reasonable way through the holding of elections to choose members of Parliament to come into this place to pass laws. Surely in the face of that, the government ought not to be bringing forward laws which we all know mean that a faceless bureaucrat in the offices of the Treasury Board, a few blocks away from this Chamber, will enact laws different from what the elected representatives have passed and have them prevail over Parliament's own laws. It should not be tolerated in this day and age.
There are many other issues that arise that I will not deal with; the issue of survivors' benefits being 50 per cent rather than that which is prescribed in the Pension Benefits Standards Act having been well commented on by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. This government has a pension plan for its employees that does not meet its own standards.
On the matter of MPs' pensions, I have been on the record as saying I favour reform of them. I do not think this is the appropriate vehicle for doing that and the study that has been announced at least gets us started on the road to it. As a younger member of Parliament, I feel free to say that I do not feel that any of us should be comfortable with the payment of pensions at an early age. Rather than the view taken by my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants earlier this evening which focused on the so-called double-dipping issue, the focus should be on the time at which pension payments are receivable. If it were changed it would address the issue of double-dipping as well.
These are things that need to be dealt with in an independent review and that is the only way with which they can be dealt with any real integrity on the part of members of Parliament who, after all, are in a very apparent and real conflict of interest in trying to deal with their own packages of payments and benefits. We need the assistance of outside experts in reviewing that.
Government Orders
I do not need to say anything more about that or about this bill. I am pleased that we will be voting against it. Despite the fact that it contains many good things, this is a bill that should not be passed by this Parliament.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and make a couple of points.
First of all I want to ask the hon. member to clarify the position of the Liberal Party with respect to the issue of the pensions of members of Parliament. I recall well in this House when the Leader of the New Democratic Party raised this issue during the course of debate on Bill C-55 that she met with considerable resistance, both from the Official Opposition and from the government.
She raised concerns about a number of aspects of the pension plan, including in particular double-dipping and the age at which the pensions vest.
I am very pleased that the Leader of the New Democratic Party was able to obtain an assurance from the President of the Treasury Board that there will be a full independent review of all aspects of the pensions of members of Parliament.
In December last year I tabled a motion in this House which called for a non-partisan independent commission to review all salaries, pensions and benefits of members of Parliament and particularly to identify inequities in the pension plan by holding public hearings and examining other jurisdictions within and outside Canada. The commission was to report within six months of its establishment.
I am very pleased that at last it seems that, under some pressure, there is movement in this regard toward an independent review.
I would like to get some clarification from the hon. member with respect to the issue of an independent review. I know my colleague from Kootenay East in particular has been lobbying for this for some time now.
Our representative on the committee, my colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, and many others have been calling for this independent review and I would hope that we would have the full support of the Official Opposition as well in calling for this.

Private Members' Business
I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the provisions in the bill with respect to correctional workers. In my previous role as spokesperson for the New Democratic Party on Justice and the Solicitor General I had the opportunity to meet with many correctional officers. For many years these men and women who work in many cases under very difficult conditions have been seeking the opportunity for an early retirement package. For years they have been promised the possibility of an early retirement package. Finally, at long last, we see movement toward an early retirement act for correctional workers.
I want to take this opportunity in the House to pay tribute to those men and women who do serve in the prisons of this country.
Certainly they have highly stressful jobs and they deserve the kind of early retirement plan that a number of other occupations have succeeded in obtaining, including air traffic controllers.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling 7 o'clock. Perhaps the hon. member will want to return after private member's hour to respond to my comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry but I have to interrupt the proceedings because being 7 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should convene a conference of the appropriate provincial ministers to promote the adoptions of programs that will ensure that disabled adults across Canada receive the comprehensive services they need to function in society.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is always very unfortunate when the rules interfere with the give and take in the question and comment time. It would be hoped that in a circumstance like this in which a member has raised questions and the reply needs to be delayed for an hour, the member would ensure he was there in order to hear the response.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member would also need to be there for me to revert to the question and comment period.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to speak to my private member's motion which has been adopted for debate this evening. Rather than repeat it, the fact that you have read the motion is sufficient.
I was motivated to bring this matter before Parliament by parents of handicapped adults, particularly the parents of a particular friend of mine by the name of John, who are faced with a bleak future for their children once they as parents are gone. It is worth pointing out that the mothers are often the remaining parent left to cope with the resulting extreme hardships of caring for their handicapped children. I wish to acknowledge that many services are provided for children and youth and for some younger adults. However, we quickly find that the services wane as the individual gets older.
As well, there remain certain biases against handicapped people no matter how hard we tiy as government to try to overcome the biases that exist in the work place.
I believe the solution to this problem lies in the continued and on-going efforts that will be required by governments of all levels to ensure the rightful place of handicapped adults in our society. It likely goes without saying that in times of fiscal restraint governments of all levels cut spending. While there is a need for this, we need to ensure that those who need our help continue to receive it. Disabled adults across Canada have been experiencing a reduction in the delivery of services such as transportation and home care.
Disabled adults are an important sector of our society. They are productive and able to contribute in many ways. Unfortunately some of what we believe to be life's
June 17, 1992

easiest tasks are not so easy for them. As a federal government we need to set examples for other levels of government to follow and we need to urge all governments to honour their commitments to every member of their communities. As technology advances, life can become easier for many disabled adults across this country. As the federal government it is our moral obligation to ensure that each and every Canadian has access to this technology.
One way this can be done is by urging provincial ministers and their governments to work with disabled groups and those they represent to find a consensus on services that are needed and wanted. In a strategy by the Secretary of State called "National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities", there are some statistics of interest. In the area of employment it states that in 1986 nearly three out of every five persons with a disability made less than $10,000. Women with disabilities experience an employment rate of 62 per cent to the rate of men with disabilities. Only 40 per cent of the adults with disabilities are in the paid labour force, compared to 70 per cent of the general population.
In the area of transportation, approximately 50 per cent of the people with disabilities who need specialized transportation services have access to them and only one province in Canada has any specialized vehicles for province-wide travel.
In education, only 56 per cent of the disabled population has eight or more years of schooling, compared to 83 per cent of the general population.
In communicating with groups that have a special interest in this area, I have received a response from the Regina and District Association for Community Living. In its communication to me it makes a statement that I feel bears some contemplation.
Creating a segregated and restricting environment for the person with a mental handicap is like planting and cultivating a garden in such a way that primarily the weeds flourish. So you spend most of your time and energy trying to come to terms with the weeds without fundamentally altering your approach to gardening.
It goes on to say that there appears to be very little comprehension of the magnitude of the issues affecting and preventing people with disabilities from leading more normal, productive and less dependent lives in our society. It further comments that it is its vision, and one that I share, that all individuals will be accepted as valuable and contributing members of our families, communities and society, regardless of the level of
Private Members' Business
support required to do so, and the association offers to work together with us in the resolve of these goals.
It is its feeling that personal empowerment must be the goal, while economic and social changes are the vehicles that must take place if individuals with a mental handicap are going to consistently achieve their potential. Our society now invests 19 to 21 years of mandatory educational services in these individuals, only to watch dishearteningly as they deteriorate after leaving school because of lack of opportunities, support and assistance.
There are two major themes that any significant social or economic change to services to individuals with a disability must address. One is consumer choice, power. The second is community commitment. The collective vision that has begun to emerge is that individual consumers or their guardians with their own purchasing power are deciding what services they need or want and are purchasing these services in a community setting of their choice.
We see the next four components as the framework from which social and economic changes will have a significant impact on personal empowerment. They are disability pension plans, employment equity with longterm support services, enriched/innovative housing that has CMHC support, and addressing the issues of poverty both from a financial as well as from an experiential perspective.
Let us talk about the disability pension plan for just a moment. There are already a number of disability pension and compensation plans available to some citizens. These are limited almost exclusively to people who have been in the work force. The same benefits should apply to people who are or become disabled before entering the labour force. Further, most provincial government assistance programs for adults such SAP are not intended for long-term sustenance for people who are disabled and dependent on the state. Most have serious and substantial disincentives, including employment, built into them.
In the second area of employment equity and day program continuum, more than 70 per cent of adults with a mental handicap are not gainfully employed. If you cannot access employment, you cannot therefore access unemployment insurance benefits or the wide range of employment initiatives through Canada manpower. Regular employment opportunities are seen as a critical part of the process of integration of people with a disability into everyday community life.

June 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
As we approach the final decade of the 20th century, a person's disability is becoming the least important factor in preventing them from becoming fully integrated into the labour market. Instead, the real factors denying persons with disabilities full access to employment are elements that are external to the individual. Specifically, some of these key issues are education structures, hiring practices and employment disincentives.
We have the knowledge base and the skills to put the vast majority of people with a mental handicap to work. We lack the commitment to employment initiatives to put them in practice.
On the third initiative, enriched/innovative housing, there is a serious lack of residential services both in spaces and options available in most, if not all, provinces. There has been very little attention to innovative options and/or enriched housing that would address the needs of people with disabilities. There have been some, admittedly, but we believe there is much more. Ghettoizing and/or living on the street is the present reality for far too many of these adults.
As a service to communities, support to adults with disabilities and boost to economies, CME1C should become more responsive to the housing needs of this vulnerable population.
The fourth area is the issue of poverty. The effect of long-term, severe poverty on an individual is more than just economic. There are physical and psychological consequences that are far more difficult to fix than to prevent.
We are talking about people with little or no disposable income, somewhere in the order of about $60 per month. Their basic needs do not include adequate clothing, food or social recreational allowances. Transportation, if available, is extremely limited, the RDACL continues.
The loss of parental support through death or a fight to gain more independence results in a dramatic and drastic lifestyle change for most disabled adults. One of the first visible signs is frequently the use of secondhand clothing in place of the newer more stylish clothing they grew up with and are used to.
Apathy and depression quickly follow with corresponding loss of ability at work or at home. This is in part due
to the grieving of this loss, but the ongoing long-term impact has more to do with the change of diet.
Another indicator is the loss of opportunity. Without a strong personal support network and with a lack of purchasing power, most individuals are unable to challenge the service system to do more than basic maintenance support. They actually end up relying on few services with less potential to access and utilize the more generic service system.
Helplessness and hopelessness are the characteristics to best describe the individuals who experience significant and long-term poverty and are unable to challenge service systems or society to understand or address then-needs.
There certainly is the willingness of groups to work with government agencies, as can be expressed in the following motion which was adopted by the Saskatchewan Association for Community Living. It reads as follows:
Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Association for Community Living meet with other groups of advocates for disabling conditions to discuss suggestions for the Saskatchewan government to establish a non-means disability pension plan which can then be augmented by either work or family help so that our people may lead lives of dignity without the need to go without the basic comforts.
All of this is not to say that nothing is being done, for there are some efforts being undertaken to address this issue. However, my concern is that this matter remain uppermost in the minds of those preparing the agenda for the various health ministers across Canada.
From the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act Annual Report of 1989-90, one can see the level to which some effort is being made. As an example, during the 1989-90 fiscal year, the federal government contributed $106.5 million to the various provinces for expenditures for the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons.
Since the federal government pays half the provincial costs for vocational rehabilitation staff services and special equipment for disabled persons, the total annual expenditure on vocational rehabilitation in goods and services averages between $200 to $250 million per year.
If I just may quote some local figures, the province of Saskatchewan received a total of $5,884,407 or nearly $6 million for a figure that made up the total payments for the year 1989-90. Another way of putting it is it amounts to about $6 for every man, woman and child living in the province of Saskatchewan. This was a contribution toward the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons.
June 17, 1992

In all of Canada, this figure was $106,515,667 for the same period of time or about $4 for every man, woman and child living in Canada. It is clear, therefore, that the will and the financial resources seem to be committed to this direction. Whether or not there has been enough consultation with those affected and whether or not this continues to be a matter of significant priority is a moot point at the present time.
Solutions to these problems will come about only through legislative initiatives. Financial assistance programs must be altered in a way that will remove existing disincentives. Employment equity legislation must become broader in scope and include a strong enforcement mechanism. We must address the impact of poverty from a proactive, preventative perspective.
Through these changes supports must be built into the system that will ensure people with disabilities have full access to programs and services and that they are able to receive the same quality of services available to the non-disabled population.
I will therefore stress once again that these matters must remain uppermost in the minds of those preparing the agenda for the provincial health ministers across Canada. I truly hope that John has a better future instore for himself.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing forth this private member's motion. It is a good initiative and we agree with it. There are a couple of things I would question him on in reference to his motion.
The motion says "disabled adults". Perhaps that was an oversight. I think perhaps it should just be "the disabled". I do not know why the motion would distinguish them, but I think that could be sorted out.
The motion says "convene a conference". I assume those attending such a conference would be the ministers of health. Now that may not be the case in all provinces, but most of us would accept that is likely to be the case.
One difficulty we have is in the definition of a disabled person. The one that I would like to see is one that I got
Private Members' Business
from this pamphlet prepared by the Library of Parliament. It was updated in 1990 from the original of 1986. It defines disability as "the loss or reduction of functional ability and activity caused by impairment".
That is a pretty broad definition, but it is a good one. Most people would accept it. The difficulty sometimes is that the definition varies, sometimes with the economic times, sometimes from country to country, but basically speaking most of us could accept that one as being general enough to live with.
I had the privilege of travelling across Canada last summer. I visited seven different cities in Canada to have dialogue with the disabled and those who represent the disabled. I found it to be a very enlightening process.
There is a lot of misconception. Disabled people prefer to work. It is a misconception to think that the disabled are always looking for additional benefits. The biggest dissatisfaction they have is when they cannot go to work. Sometimes it is for a very simple reason. For the most part, they prefer to work. They do not necessarily want more protection from society. What they would like society to do for them is to remove the impediments preventing them from going to work or finding a job and staying at it. They want to compete.
In my background I have had some experience with the disabled. They can be very competitive and very good employees, if they are given the chance.
It seems to me what my colleague is trying to bring forth here would be the right thing to do in a civilized society such as ours. This is the right time to do it.
It used to be said that the advancement of any mature society could be measured by the number of libraries or the number of worn out books it had. A good correlation though would be the advancement of a mature society that could be measured on how it reacts, how it looks, how it treats and how it provides for disabled people. That could very well be a definition of a mature and advanced society.
Canada has made tremendous progress. The people I associated with last summer in our task force would admit that. There are all kinds of examples where great

Private Members' Business
progress has been made. However, we seem to back off every once in a while too.
The year 1981 was a great one. Some of my colleagues who were in the House will remember the International Year of the Disabled. Everybody's hopes, I suppose, were elevated to some degree. In 1988 the government introduced National Access Awareness Week. It is a positive development and usually happens in the spring. It has been in place for four or five years.
I was really disappointed when the government backed off on the Court Challenges Program. If the discussion there is not finished yet, and I hope it is not, I really think it is an indication that we are not too sincere about it. The Court Challenges Program provided a way in which the disabled could challenge some of the legal provisions that are there and not being addressed. That was a bit of a disappointment for me.
The biggest offender in many cases is the federal government itself. Some of the studies that have been done have left us looking pretty miserable as policy-makers if we are not prepared to carry out those same policies to which we seem to think others should adhere.
A commission found that 32 federal government offices that they visited randomly did not meet the national standards for building access, for example. They were missing basic things, structural things, ramps and the like.
Out of 48 government agencies reviewed, 28 agencies did not offer even one publication in any alternate form other than regular print. There were no cassettes, which are not expensive, no Braille, no large print.
The government itself should examine its own motives. It is okay to make laws and determine what you think the practice should be, but surely the first one to abide by that should be the government itself. I do not think you can expect too much positive reaction from private enterprise or private industry if the government is one of the worst offenders. They are pretty discouraging statistics.
If the only thing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to do is to be an outlet for somebody who has a complaint, and if all it does is address complaints, we will make even slower progress than we are making now
because that body will not be in the position to address all the complaints.
Disabled people whom I have been associated with have told me they do get shuffled around. They get moved from office to office to office and sometimes they think that all we are trying to do is waste their time and everybody else's time because we do not know what to do with them. It seems to me some kind of a national clearing house would solve a lot of the problems if we really wanted to address those problems because they do get shuffled around and they know that.
There are a couple of things happening in Canada which I think would be in keeping with my colleague's motion. We had an opportunity to examine the Premiers' Council in two provinces, Alberta and New Brunswick. I think the Alberta one was based on the New Brunswick one; I think it was in that order.
This is a very positive thing but there is nothing comparable to it at the federal level. The Premiers' Council brought people with disabilities on track when there was new legislation being planned. The legislation would to some extent be tested by disabled people themselves. They would improve on it, add to it, or delete from it.
In this country right now there are about 550,000 visually impaired Canadians. These are people who would have to wear extraordinarily strong glasses all the time. They cannot read ordinary print. Of that number,
46,000	people would be declared legally blind, for whom glasses or print would not be enough and they would have to move to Braille.
This is interesting and a fascinating statistic: 45 per cent of Canadians with disabilities have grade eight or eight years of formal schooling or less, whereas in the general population in Canada it is about 17 per cent.
The disability someone has reflects on their whole way of life. They do not get the opportunity to go to school because schools are not equipped to accommodate them, and the thing sort of feeds on itself.
There are 195,000 hearing impaired people in this country living in poverty. There are 134,000 visually impaired people living in poverty. There are 493,000 who are mobility impaired, cannot move freely and live in poverty.
June 17, 1992

What I am pointing out is that there is a connection between being impaired, having a lack of opportunity and being destined to a life of poverty. Those are rather alarming statistics and we should address this problem on a very broad scale. It should not be narrowed down to where we think all we have to do is provide a few more ramps or something. It has to be looked at in a much broader context.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out. But the best model that I have found for legislation is in the United States, where two years ago it passed what is called the ADA, the American Disability Act. It is a model which I think Canada should look at. It is a model for the world and the world's strongest protection for disabled people is in the United States right now.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Regina-Wascana gave us the opportunity to debate the concerns of disabled Canadians in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we are not presented with that opportunity often enough.
The motion that has been put forward by the hon. member, and I want to read it for the record, says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should convene a conference of the appropriate provincial ministers to promote the adoption of programs that will ensure that disabled adults across Canada receive the comprehensive services they need to function in society.
This is not a new notion. The previous speaker referred to the work of the then Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons in preparation for the International Year of the Disabled. That committee, of which I was a member, tabled its report in the House of Commons in 1981 and that report was named The Obstacles report.
I want to say that the Obstacles report was considered internationally as the Magna Carta for the disabled into the next century, it was thought of so highly.
In that report there were 130 recommendations, one of which emphasized the need for the provincial governments and the federal government to co-ordinate then-activities, on not only services for disabled persons but also employment needs, transportation needs, education needs, recreational needs, all those areas of society that
Private Members' Business
able-bodied persons take for granted but which are denied to many persons with disabilities.
That is not a new recommendation. If the government decided in its wisdom to act on this motion, I would strongly urge it not to do it through convening a meeting of health ministers. That has been the problem over the years. There has been this view of people who may have a disability somehow or other being in need of medical services. There could be nothing further from the truth, in my experience. In fact, if there were anything to be convened, it should be among ministers of justice, both at the provincial and federal levels.
What is really required from legislators and policymakers in this country is to view disabled issues as matters of justice, economic justice, just plain old-fashioned justice. It has nothing to do with medical needs. Some people may need medical assistance to allow them to participate in the mainstream of Canadian society, but some able-bodied Canadians need that.
What is sorely missing over the period from 1980 until 1992 is a serious commitment to that principle. It is not that anyone says the wrong thing about issues of concern to disabled Canadians. That is not the problem. You can find all kinds of statements over the years where all kinds of people say the right things about what should happen. The problem is that no one does the right things.
It is action that is required, Mr. Speaker, rather than promises. The member who moved the motion made reference to the five-year strategy that was announced by the government last year, a five-year strategy for the integration of disabled persons into the mainstream of Canadian society.
Under that strategy, to make sure that the strategy worked and was implemented, it was proposed that a committee of deputy ministers meet on a regular basis to take a look at laws where they discriminate against the disabled population, to take a look at services that discriminate against persons with disability, to take a look at areas of government policy where we have control to ensure that anything that was of a discriminatory nature that affected persons with disabilities in Canada would be removed.
That was last summer.

June 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
I asked in the committee on the human rights and status of disabled persons of which I am a member how many times had that subcommittee of deputy ministers met. They have met twice. I received the written answer last week. There have been two meetings with one deputy minister in attendance and one person assigned by a deputy minister in attendance.
If that is their strategy, it is one I do not want. If their strategy is not to do anything then I would rather not have the dam strategy.
The problem with the strategy is that no one has sat down and worked out timetables of when these things are supposed to happen, when they will come into place. The strategy itself as announced is not a bad strategy but it is only going to be a good strategy if somebody does something about it.
I will repeat what I said a few minutes ago. It is not that anyone says the wrong things about the need for assistance if you happen to be disabled. The problem is getting them to do the right thing. That is the problem.
I will give another example, a very simple matter in my view. We recommended in the Obstacles report that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include a section that said people had a duty to accommodate persons with disabilities. Simple.
The United States, which in my view was a very regressive society, way behind Canada on issues affecting disabled people up until about a year ago, finally did that. It adopted the Americans with disabilities act which recognizes that society has a duty to accommodate persons with disabilities.
I do not recall what was in the calculations. I see the very able chairman of our committee sitting over there. He may remember. It was calculated in the United States that by society continuing to ignore its disabled population it was costing that society in the range of billions and billions of tax dollars in the year. It was calculated that the total population of disabled persons who were not employed in regular work and were not making contributions to American society was costing billions of dollars in American tax money to support them.
That was an incentive. They came forward with a piece of legislation that may not fit in Canada but at least it established some principles. The principles were that a
disabled person in American society, and I would argue the same should be in existence in Canada, should have the same access to services as every other person who is able-bodied.
That is why I say it is a matter and a question of justice. It is not a question of hand-outs to someone who is disabled. They do not want that. Disabled people that I know are quite capable of looking after themselves in the main with some assistance.
It seems to me that our society would be much further ahead. In fact, we have to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in. Do we want to live in a society where we exclude millions of Canadians because they happen to be disabled, or do we want a society that includes every Canadian and allows every Canadian to live within the mainstream of Canadian society?
I can see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that we should be grateful to the hon. member for Regina-Wascana for raising this subject in Parliament. The issue of providing benefits and services to persons with disabilities is one that hon. members know first hand has been in the minds of many, both here and in the other place.
Hon. members will recall that during debate last year on Bill C-38, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, many of the issues raised and concerns expressed, both by hon. members and by witnesses appearing before the legislative committee, had to do with the disability pension provisions of the Canada Pension Plan.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that in addition to providing retirement, survivor's and children's benefits, the Canada Pension Plan also provides a monthly disability pension to contributors with a severe and prolonged disability. The maximum monthly benefit is currently $784 per month.
The fact that disability issues were the focus of so much discussion during debate on Bill C-39 was quite remarkable, given that the bill was addressing the financing of the Canada Pension Plan and an increase in children's benefits.
In response to these concerns and those expressed about other provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a commitment to Parliament to raise these issues with his
June 17, 1992

provincial counterparts. Hon. members will recall that although the Canada Pension Plan is administered by the federal government, it is in essence a federal-provincial program.
Major amendments to the plan require the approval of not only the Parliament of Canada but also two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the Canadian population.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has formally proposed to his provincial counterparts of social services the formation of a federal-provincial committee of income security and social service officials. This committee will review issues relating to the Canada Pension Plan other than financing which will remain the purview of the federal and provincial ministers.
The provinces have agreed and it is expected that the first meeting will be held early in the fall. As the hon. member can see, the federal government is actively working with the provinces to establish a mechanism to ensure that our national pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan, meets the needs of all Canadians. This new process is in keeping with the spirit of the hon. member's motion and should encourage both him and persons with disabilities that their concerns as they relate to the CPP will be addressed.
The other aspect of the hon. member's motion that I would like to speak to is the idea of programs that enable persons with disabilities to function in society. In this regard, the Canada Pension Plan is examining its role in the vocational rehabilitation of persons receiving a CPP disability pension. The CPP's involvement in the rehabilitation area is relatively recent. Previously, it had been viewed that the plan's clientele were not likely candidates for rehabilitation because of their severe and prolonged disabilities.
However, times and attitudes change and disabled people are indicating that what they want most of all is to work. They view this as the only sure-fire way out of the poverty that so many persons with disabilities currently live in. That was certainly the message that came out loud and clear at Independence '92, the International Congress and Exposition on Disability held last month in Vancouver.
Private Members' Business
In the fall of 1990, a pilot project was started to see if vocational rehabilitation was feasible for the Canada Pension Plan. The goal of the pilot project was to provide 100 CPP disability pensioners with the training, skills and/or education needed to return to suitable employment. This effort was expanded when last year, as part of the national strategy on the integration of persons with disabilities, an additional $6 million over five years was allocated from the CPP fund to the development of rehabilitation initiatives within the CPP.
The results of the initial pilot project which wound up this spring have been encouraging from both the client s point of view and the impact on plan expenditures. The pilot project also provided valuable insights into how an expansion of rehabilitation should take place. The Department of National Health and Welfare is currently in the process of designing the next phase of rehabilitation in the Canada Pension Plan. It is expected to be operational shortly.
In closing, I hope my remarks have provided some information as to the achievements of the federal government in conjunction with the provinces in the area of the Canada Pension Plan.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I too want to take the opportunity to thank the hon. member for Regina-Wascana for bringing forward this motion on a very important issue. The issue really is the value and worth of every human being in our society and how we can ensure that every individual has the opportunity to participate as fully as they are able to in society.
We have just completed National Access Awareness Week. I spent some time at various places in my own riding that are providing those kinds of services. St. Stevens residence has just opened up to provide community living for people with in some cases mental disabilities, in some cases physical disabilities and in some cases a combination of both. It is a great tribute to the people who conceived this project that a number of young people and older people who have spent the largest part of their lives in institutions are now living in the community, participating with others, participating in worship, participating in education and in work experi-

Private Members' Business
ences for a number of them. They are now able to live more fully complete lives as members of society.
Another facility, the Ottawa-Carleton Independent Learning Centre, is devoted to assisting people with fully independent living, as determined by themselves. I think that is the important thing. For far too long society, families, friends, people who care for persons with disabilities have assumed that we know best and have not allowed them the independence to choose and have not allowed them to have that independence to choose by ensuring that the services are there to give them the fullest possible range of choices.
Also in Ottawa West we have the Disabled Persons Community Resources which again brings together all the resources of this region and ensures that people have access to services. It is not enough that the services are there, that the people know about them, that there are not barriers based on mobility, knowledge, economic ability, language; if the services are there they have to be accessible to people in all the many ways we can think of accessibility.
Perhaps the most important service in that comprehensive package of services that the motion mentions and in the ability to function in society that the motion mentions is the ability to be employed. It is interesting that this motion comes forward for debate tonight, sandwiched between two bills, both of which are relevant to the motion, the bill we were dealing with before this hour on pensions for Public Service employees and the bill we will be dealing with later this evening on reform of the Public Service. It is not enough to bring forward issues in isolation.
What we have to learn to do in this House is to look at every piece of legislation, every government program and say among the other things we say in analysing a bill, does this bill assist or further hinder the ability of persons with disabilities to function fully in society? Both of these bills we are dealing with this evening are relevant, both of them continue or in fact increase impediments to persons with disabilities functioning in society.
I say that because the federal government is the largest employer in this country. As the largest employer in the country it has the obligation and it has the capacity to demonstrate that persons with disabilities can be fully
integrated in employment by proper accommodation in recognition of the disability and, more importantly, in recognition of the inherent abilities of that person.
The federal government does not do that very well as an employer, and it is certainly something we in this House have an obligation to pay attention to.
For instance, we just dealt with Bill C-55, which allows some limited access, not full access, to pension plans for part-time employees. Many disabled people cannot work full time, or in order to remain as fully employed as they can with their disability they may be able to work full time for a while and then shift to part-time work for a while if their condition worsens, and then they may return to full-time work when they are able to.
Up until now, and even now, with the very limited provisions for part-timers to contribute to a pension plan, part-time employees in the Public Service have not had full access to a pension plan. Therefore their ability to work and have financial stability, not only during their working years but after they are no longer able to work, is limited by a bill that we are dealing with right now.
We will be dealing later this evening with Bill C-26, which deals with employment practices in the Public Service. That bill again continues some barriers to employment for persons with disabilities.
There is great concern among groups in society who are traditionally disadvantaged in employment-women, aboriginal peoples, people of colour, and people with a range of disabilities. There is great concern with regard to this bill that the Public Service is shifting away from the concept of hiring somebody on the basis of what they can do and giving managers more discretion so that they do not to have to meet that standard of "who has the ability to do this job".
Right now there are programs within the Public Service Commission that allow the Commission to place a disabled person in a job in a department by providing funding for that job for a period of time. The intention is that they will get trained and the employer, the department, will have the experience of having a disabled person working in their department or in their branch, and will discover what this person can do rather than seeing only the disability. Hopefully that will lead to a full-time permanent job for them.

In fact, what happens is that people continually get hired on term because they are disabled and they are never quite good enough to be hired permanently. Rather than facilitating the employment of persons with a disability, we are exploiting them.
What happens is that under the access program they get referred to a position and as soon as the special money that is provided runs out the department finds for some reason that it cannot keep this person on. So they get shuffled around. Now they are working and now they are not working.
It is not enough, and later this evening members will hear amendments to the act that we will be dealing with that would place additional responsibilities on the Public Service Commission.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I have been listening with care to what my hon. friend has been injecting into this debate. I understand that she has an interest in bills that will be before us later this evening. However I would ask you, sir, to invoke the rules of relevancy and ask her to stay on the subject of this private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! I would remind all hon. members that the rule of relevancy is one of the most difficult that the Chair has to enforce. Therefore, I would call upon the co-operation of both sides of this House. I think it is always useful to keep this in mind.
I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West again, for 30 seconds.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I really do resent the interruption.
The employment of persons with disabilities is one of the most crucial issues that persons with disabilities face.
I simply call upon the government, and all of us as parliamentarians, every time we are dealing with legislation, but particularly as an employer, to put into practice those principles that the hon. member's motion tonight talks about.
Private Members' Business
It is not enough to talk about these things in principle. We must put them into practice at every opportunity. As an employer we, the federal government, can do more for the disabled and their equality of access than anyone else in this country.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Regina-Wascana dated May 15, 1991, in which the hon. member suggests convening a conference of provincial ministers. The purpose of the conference would be to promote the adoption of programs that will ensure that disabled persons across Canada receive the comprehensive services they need to function in society.
I want to thank the hon. member for his concern for the integration of disabled persons into society. This concern is indeed more than legitimate since, as we know, disabled persons represent 13 per cent of the Canadian population and, in too many cases, remain an untapped resource, both socially and economically.
I would first like to give a brief overview of the past twelve years which I believe will justify the position taken by our government.
In 1991 the United Nations proclaimed the International Year of the Disabled. This was the kick start for a world awareness campaign.
In 1982 the government enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms a clause on disabled persons which gave them the right to the same protection and benefits of the law, irrespective of any discrimination including discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disabilities.
This first step toward equality was to open the door to a whole series of measures and projects which, over the past decade have helped the disabled community to start taking its place in Canadian society.
In 1983 the United Nations proclaimed the decade of the disabled, an opportunity to insist on their rights as citizens. In 1985 our Prime Minister published a statement on the decade of the disabled, stressing the need to encourage the disabled to become fully involved in society and to be part of social change, in order to develop their potential and accept their duties as citi-

June 17, 1992
Private Members' Business
zens. That same year, the Secretary of State was designated Minister responsible for the Status of the Disabled.
In 1986 the Employment Equity Act was adopted, obliging federally regulated employers to file reports on the measures they take to recruit disabled persons. The following year, the government proclaimed a national access week for the disabled, urging municipalities to improve access levels in transportation, the work place, recreation facilities, education and housing.
Between 1988 and 1991 the government pursued its initiatives with federal-provincial agreements on social housing, a policy ensuring that properties purchased or leased by the government include no physical barriers, and the start of a complete review of federal statutes affecting the disabled, to name only a few of these projects.
I am not trying to make the government look good. I simply want to make it clear that we have made progress and, above all, that we have paved the way for future action. We realize that being disabled does not in any way diminish a person's value or, and this is very important, the contribution that person can make to society.
We understood that political action and legislation to change the system would be effective only if we were able to change attitudes. In the past year, much has been done to implement the government's commitment on this issue.
First, in the fall of 1991 the government launched its National Strategy for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities, a five-year project co-ordinated by the Department of the Secretary of State and involving ten federal departments and agencies. The strategy, which is meant to ensure equal access for the disabled, their integration into economic life and full participation in society, appeals to the spirit of partnership and calls on all levels of government to take part.
Since last fall, several departments and agencies have begun to make changes, many in close co-operation with the provinces and territories.
For example, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) set up a program of financial assistance for disabled and low-income seniors who wish to make minor changes to their home. Several provinces
and territories have agreed to participate in the program, which will start in July.
The Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport provides another excellent example of partnership. To ensure the commitment and support of the whole community, the department decided to share information on its program with all prospective partners. Fitness Canada thus held information meetings with representatives of the provincial and territorial governments and the voluntary and private sectors. Meetings were held in every province and territory between December 1991 and February 1992, and the results of these meetings are now being distributed to all participants.
Fitness Canada has also shown initiative in the field of education. Working in close co-operation with nine sports organizations and recreation centres for the disabled, the department is developing educational material to help teachers better integrate handicapped students in their physical education classes. In March, it established a steering committee to liaise with the Department of Education in every province.
Finally, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well is always consulting with the provinces and territories. In the province of my distinguished colleague, Saskatchewan, for example, the provincial departments and organizations that provide services to the disabled participated in information meetings culminating in a conference this past January where they developed a strategy and defined some common goals. Similarly, consultations with provincial representatives were held and will be held in Alberta and British Columbia.
I could continue giving examples of consultation and partnership between the federal government and the provinces. I think that everyone has understood that no government or organization alone can eliminate the obstacles preventing 3.3 million disabled Canadians from having full access to all areas of our society.
I will conclude by thanking the hon. member who presented the motion and gave me the opportunity to discuss this subject in the House of Commons. I trust that I have clearly shown the consultation that exists between the federal government and the provinces. Above all, I had this chance to highlight all that is being done at all levels to give the disabled more opportunity for real control over their lives and to let them take their rightful place in their own provinces and in Canada.
June 17, 1992


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak on. Bill C-55. It is a piece of legislation that I have looked over very carefully. It is in fact almost an omnibus,bill. It deals with so many different aspects of pension legislation. I listened to the parliamentary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. We are on Private Members' Business. It has not expired. I gave the floor to the hon. member expecting that she would speak about the private member's motion.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Edwards (p. 12268).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate there were seven minutes remaining in the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa South.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, as we reached seven o'clock, the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway had posed a question to me with respect to MPs' pension plans and noted that he hoped I would be here at eight o'clock in order to give the reply.
Regrettably, the hon. member does not seem to have been able to make it back in order to hear my reply. However, I would like to make a few comments, particularly in view of the fact that he seemed to be, in his comments, claiming some kind of victory on behalf of his
Government Orders
leader for the fact that the President of the Treasury Board announced that an independent committee would be reviewing MPs' pensions. He talked a great deal about how this had been called for and how it had been promised, which is all very well.
What is unclear is exactly what the position of NDP members is on the issue. One would have thought part of that letter having been given that if they did indeed feel as strongly as their leader claimed to feel in her initial speech, that perhaps in the context of the parliamentary committee they might have moved a few amendments on the issue. Were there any amendments by the NDP?


An hon. member:: No.


John Paul Manley: No amendments were moved. We have to guess what their position really is. We have to read the rumours that appear here and there about the reaction of their caucus. What we do know is that members of the NDP have succeeded very well in achieving some excellence in the art of double-dipping. We have some very good examples of former NDP members who have accepted very good positions with the federal government on top of their government pensions, including their former leader.
It is very hard to take seriously the question from the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. He inquires at seven o'clock to run out the clock and then he is not really able to make clear what position it is that his party is trying to defend.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is at a special dinner on foreign affairs. He is our foreign affairs critic. Maybe I could put the question again since the member did not answer it.
The question was quite simple. What was the Liberal position? The Liberals are famous for being mugwumps. Do you know what mugwumps are, Mr. Speaker? They are people who sit on a fence. They have their mug on one side and their wump on the other.
The Liberals are famous for this-on the trade deal, on the GST, on pensions, on everything. They try to be everything to everybody. At some point the mugwump starts to hurt a little bit, sitting as he does in the middle. So I will put the question again. What is the position of the hon. member's party, the Liberal Party? Or is he going to continue the tradition of mugwumpry among the Liberals.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I certainly made my position clear in my speech. I do not think this member was present for that part. Maybe if we could get the NDP caucus all together at once we could have a discussion about it. What clearly has not been stated is what the NDP position is. I do not think we are accomplishing anything by this, Mr. Speaker.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am sony that when I looked at the clock a few moments ago I thought we were back on Bill C-55, so I apologize to you. I do want to speak on Bill C-55.
It is, as I said earlier, legislation which I have examined very carefully. It is, in fact, almost an omnibus bill. It deals with so many components of federal pensions that it really would have been better, I feel, if the government had split this bill into its different components so we could deal with it in those components.
There are a number of features in this bill that I support and I know that other members of my caucus support. Finally, after years and years of lobbying, federal part-time workers, if this bill becomes law, will be able to become part of the federal superannuation plans. I am sure most of us in this House are aware this is a benefit which will proportionately mean more to women than it does to men because a larger number of women are working on a part-time basis and not in full-time jobs.
This bill also provides for an early retirement act for correctional workers. That is another suggestion that has been made in this House for at least 10 years, another situation for which we have lobbied for a long time. Correctional workers have very stressful jobs and they deserve the kind of unreduced early retirement plan that air traffic controllers have had for some time now.
Another provision in this bill that I support is the new Pension Benefits Division Act which instructs the federal government to enforce court ordered divisions of federal pension credits upon marital breakdown. This idea was also a very long time coming. In fact, since I was elected in 19881 have been working on this issue. I have received representations from a number of women who have been married to plan holders and have lost totally the benefits they should be entitled to because of the way the previous act was written.
I am afraid there is still a number of problems with the method the government has chosen in its attempt to address this inequality for women in this very large bill. I heard the parliamentary secretary saying earlier today that this is a simple bill that brings pension legislation in line with the Income Tax Act. I would ask the parliamentary secretary why on earth do we have a bill with 153 pages dealing with so many aspects of pension legislation, including the pensions of members of Parliament, which it seems to have just kind of snuck in there?
I would respond also to the Liberal member who was speaking a moment ago that the leader of the New Democratic Party made the position of the New Democratic Party straight and clear when she spoke in the House at second reading. That is the position of the New Democratic Party. There are concerns in this caucus, and within this party, around the provisions of double-dipping and triple-dipping that we know has gone on. We know that the public shares those concerns. There are concerns around the age at which a member is entitled to start to receive pension benefits. Those are the concerns she articulated. She articulated them clearly and this is the position of the New Democratic Party.
I said a few moments ago that I had some concerns with the bill in relation to the pension splitting provisions. Women are living in poverty unnecessarily because of this government's policy on pensions. This bill will only ensure that women who can jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops from now on will get a part of the pension to which they are entitled. It does not do anything for the many women who are retired or approaching retirement after a lifetime of work in their homes. They remain, in fact, doomed to poverty under this new legislation.
What I am talking about here is spouses of contributors to the government's own pension plan, from Public Service employees, Armed Forces personnel, diplomatic service, et cetera. Since 1987, the federal government has required federally-regulated industries to adopt certain pension standards which include pension credit splitting on marriage breakdown. The federal government has exempted itself from the Pension Benefit Standards Act and continues to set a lower standard for itself than for federally regulated industries.
June 17, 1992

My New Democrat colleagues and I have proposed a number of amendments, contrary to what was just said in the House. I think we have proposed around 30 amendments to this legislation. One of those amendments would have provided for retroactivity so that women who were cheated out of their pensions by government policy would now be able to get that pension. That amendment was defeated by the government majority in the House of Commons.
Another New Democrat amendment moved in the committee studying this bill would have provided for spousal representation on pension advisory committees. That was also defeated by the Conservative majority.
Other amendments that were drafted in consultation with spouses concerning the imposition of a trust on the pension plan, the amount of the pension to be transferred, and so on, were also defeated by the Conservative majority.
I am, however, pleased that the government took some of the New Democrat amendments and proposed them itself, such as the valuation of pensions, the disclosure of pension information to the spouse and a determination of the length of the period of cohabitation.
As I said earlier, this is an issue I have been working on since only months after I was elected to this House of Commons. I have received letters from a number of women in every region of this country who have been very badly treated by the current legislation.
I have written to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women who is also the Associate Minister for National Defence a number of times over the years asking for relief for particular women, married women who had devoted their lives to a husband's career and children and then found themselves living in poverty. I also wrote to the President of the Treasury Board. I asked the ministers to urge their government to support our amendment on retroactivity. Sadly that was to no avail.
The government's record on women and pension is extremely poor and unfortunately so are these women who have been caught in this squeeze. They are also extremely poor. In the area of the Canada Pension Plan the government has failed the women of Canada.
Government Orders
I have been corresponding for years on the case of Helen Marie Davis. This woman was married for several decades to a man and underwent great personal hardship with him. She bore and raised eight children. She left him-she had to leave him later in life-and obtained a divorce. Because of his failing health she resumed living with him and he died within the year that they resumed living together.
Do members know how much she receives from her husband's Canada pension credit? Do they know how much she gets in a pension from the Canada Pension Plan? Zero, not one penny, because according to this government's policy she had been living with him less than a year even though she had actually lived with him for decades. She went through a humiliating and unexpected cross-examination at the appeal hearings and again she walked out with nothing, zero. This policy is cruel and nonsensical and must be changed.
As an example of the federal employment pension, which is the subject matter at hand, I have been working on the case of a woman who was married to a foreign service employee for 38 years. As a consular spouse she was not allowed by government regulation to take employment despite her own two university degrees. She was 63 years old by the time the regulations changed and too old to re-enter her own profession.
In some ways this woman is more fortunate than others I have dealt with in that her ex-husband has agreed to provide her voluntarily with half his pension. But because he is in a higher tax bracket than she, she must pay higher taxes than she would if the pension had been divided at source and provided directly to her.
A woman's right to her share of a pension should not have to rely on the good will of the divorced husband or on tricks provincial courts sometimes use to get around the federal legislation. I have heard so many problems with Revenue Canada's treatment of pension splitting that I urge this government to review the situation as quickly as possible and to take action.
Many divorced women live in poverty and many are saddled with huge legal bills. The government is not making sure that they get their half of the pensions regularly, nor is Revenue Canada sensitive to the situation these women find themselves in. Another woman wrote to me, and I will quote:

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
I feel that in spite of all the changes for the better in a women's status
in this country, we are still in the Dark Ages in many ways. After nearly
30 years of marriage my husband left me after losing everything we had
worked for over most of my lifetime.
The court awarded this woman a part of her husband's RCMP pension, but if he dies the pension dies with him and the woman he has been living with gets the survivor's pension. There is nothing for the woman who has raised his three children and had been with him for most of his life. She will get nothing at all.
This woman is now in her later years and loses out for the time that she helped him to earn that pension. The issue of survivor's benefits, which is among the most important of all pension issues, is not really addressed in this bill. It is not addressed at all.
It is appalling that a person can be deemed dead when their ex-partner dies and then they lose any benefits. This is what this legislation does.
I have heard particularly from women whose spouses are in the Armed Forces. They tell me this is a very stressful life which does contribute to marriage breakdown. The woman is sometimes left alone to raise children for long periods of time. Why is there so little recognition of this role that women play, this work that women do for many years in their lives?
More and more women these days have paid jobs outside the home. Yet when a woman follows her husband throughout the world, in many countries it is difficult for her to find a job. The women who suffer most are those of the older generation, many of whom did no paid work and have no pension in their own names. These older women are the ones who will not benefit at all from this new legislation.
I have also been told by women of problems with the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act. One woman was abused by her husband for 23 years. She left him but she has been unable to collect her support under that bill. She receives half of her husband's pension whenever he feels like sending it. What limited money she receives will stop when he dies.
One of the New Democrat amendments would have remedied this situation by imposing a trust on the
pension plan so that when it is split, half of the pension is paid out to the spouse directly from the pension plan on time and until her death, not his if he predeceases her. The government again used its majority to defeat this amendment.
The many women who have written to me and to the ministers are forced to open up every detail of their own personal lives in the hope this government will show them some compassion. I sometimes feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall when trying to deal with the government. I get letters and I have conversations with these women and they share the pain, agony, and humiliation they feel. I know the government side gets the same letters, because often the letters I receive have been carbon copied to me that have gone to a minister. Not one of these women who have talked of their divorces or their abuse or other aspects of their personal situations to complete strangers who have power over them will benefit from this bill.
I think that is a travesty. This lack of attention to this matter in the bill certainly does figure prominently in my decision about whether or not to support it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on an especially excellent speech in that she dealt with specific cases of real people who are affected by this legislation or actually have not been helped by the legislation.
I noticed she referred to an act concerning garnisheed wages. I thought maybe I would just expand on that a little bit. I used to prosecute some of these cases in the courts where money would have to be collected, usually from the husband, so I am somewhat familiar with this matter.
I will translate this into the actual facts. What happens, and it happened more in the past but it is still happening, the husband was out working and the wife stayed home looking after the children. They would get divorced, the assets would be split and she would get half of his pension and that was a big fight.


An hon. member:: Not here, not in this bill.
June 17, 1992


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, not in this bill but often in some agreements in court or as part of the divorce settlement. The only problem is that the pension, as I understand it, still goes to one person, usually to the man. Then the man does not live up to his obligations under the court order.
What has to happen then is the woman has to go to court. She has to hire a lawyer or line up to get a prosecutor and the man's bank account or wages are garnisheed. It takes time, it is expensive and often times the woman does not get anything. The husband of course sometimes resists. She may get money, but would it not be better if we just split that up and the bill dealt with that and the modem situation and made it easier for the woman? I think that was the principle behind our amendments.
As the hon. member said, suppose the man dies. Suddenly the pension is gone and it is not even-


An hon. member:: She is deemed dead.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And she is deemed dead. I am laughing, but it is not a laughing matter. That is what we tried to do on our amendments and I am sorry the government did not accept them.
Before I sit down, I wanted to tell the hon. member that I received a letter today from a woman in Port Moody who is a widow. She wrote saying that she has an 18-year old son. He is six foot six and weighs well over 200 pounds. She was getting a child allowance from the government and then it was cut back. She said that her pension was increased but it was not enough to pay for all the clawbacks and the cutbacks.
We have a government that is not totally reforming the pension system and is out there clawing back different allowances. Here is this poor woman who has to feed this giant of a kid on less money from this government. That really is not justice.
I do not know if the hon. member wants to comment on that. It is another example of a difficult situation for people living in the real world in Canada.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, a neighbouring riding of mine. We are very close in the lower mainland of Vancouver.
I want to expand on the pension splitting provisions of this bill. The method of division proposed in this bill is
Government Orders
flawed because it does not provide for consistent treatment of federally regulated employees in the Public Service. The government in fact had models to choose from, models that work quite well. There is the Canada Pension Plan with automatic division of credits or the flexible provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The government chose neither of those two models.
Instead, the government decided to limit the benefit distribution to one method only, the much more restrictive, cumbersome and less fair lump sum transfer. This method is not easily acceptable and it has a lot of built-in time delays and court costs. The evaluation of these lump sum amounts fails to take into account many factors.
There were a number of options presented at committee stage that would have improved the bill. Unfortunately the government did not accept them.
The key thing to remember in this legislation is that it does in fact make some small measure of improvement because it does allow for pension splitting, even though it is an imperfect model.
My concern which I tried to articulate in the comments I made is that it will not benefit those women who have been cheated out of a fair share of the pensions they, in fact, worked for over the many years they may have been married.
I gave the example of the woman who was the spouse of a diplomat. She was married for some 30 years and was not allowed to work by conditions of her husband's employment. By this government's own conditions, she was not allowed to have employment. When that marriage split up she had no provision to access part of the pension she had helped her husband earn.
Now this bill does nothing to remedy that situation for those women who have been cheated out of a lifetime of earnings and a share in the pension plan.


Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-55, which concerns changes in the superannuation plan for the Public Service, the RCMP and the Armed Forces. I estimate that in my own riding of Carleton- Gloucester the majority of my constituents are employed either by the Public Service, the RCMP or the Armed Forces.

Government Orders
These employees have all contributed to the plan, as they would in the private sector. Some people, especially on the government benches, claim that public servants are getting a free ride. I can assure you that public servants, like their colleagues in the private sector, have contributed their fair share to their pension plan.
Public servants are professionals who dedicate their lives, and do so very conscientiously, to serving Canada's communities. They are paid to do this, but they have to consider the future. Public servants must have a pension plan that is fair. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that public servants have a pension plan that is both fair and equitable, so that it can meet the needs of public servants when they are retired.
The superannuation fund now contains almost $75 billion, or it will in a matter of months or, to be more specific, towards the end of the year.
Surprisingly, the government is the self-appointed administrator, comptroller, trustee and manager of the fund. The government has a monopoly. It is the official trustee of this pension plan, so it should be honest and fair in dealing with its employees. It is not a matter of handouts but of being fair.
We all know the government uses this money for its own purposes, either to pay off the deficit or the national debt. Contrary to the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, employees and retired employees are not included on the Board. The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 is an act respecting pension plans organized and administered for the benefit of persons employed in connection with certain federal works, undertakings and businesses. This act was assented to on June 27, 1986. The administration of pension plans will, according to the act, include at least one member of the pension committee chosen by plan members.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Speaker: Do employees have a representative on the pension fund advisory committee? Do retired civil servants have one? The answer is no, unlike other programs in various provinces.
This bill also provides for retired contributors to be represented on the management committee by a person appointed by them. "The employer, says the law, will ensure that the amounts deducted are accounted separately from its own." He must keep them in trust. I ask you this: Does government use the money for its own purposes? Does government put it in a trust fund? Does government use it to reduce its deficit or the public debt? The Auditor General has already tabled a report in which he advised Parliament that the rate of return on the Public Service superannuation account was between 1 and 2 per cent under the current rate on the investment market. Pensions are not negotiable, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, there is a need to be fair to these employees in the legislation.
On the death of the contributor, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent of the benefits. Why is there no provision to allow surviving spouses, generally women, to receive 60 per cent, as provided for in other pension plans across the country? What government did with this 50 per cent entitlement is contrary to the terms of its own 1985 Pension Benefits Standards Act, which calls for 60 per cent. Is government truly committed to the well-being of its employees who, day after day, provide services and see to it that government legislation is enforced?
Why, discriminate against part-time employees, term employees, contract employees? It is unfair to women in particular. Why could part-time and term employees not contribute to the pension fund too? As you know, Public Service 2000 is now being implemented. This government's agenda is apparently to keep shrinking the Public Service indefinitely. It seems to have no respect for the Public Service and to want to privatize it all. Are we to understand that government is not really trying to provide its employees with a fair pension plan?
Then, there is this amendment about indexing. Why did the government vote against this amendment designed to maintain indexing? What is it up to? Does it have unpleasant surprises in store for its employees? Let us not forget that employees pay to get this protection. It is no gift or giveaway.

What does this government have against fairness? Why does it exempt itself from the standards established by the Pension Benefits Standards legislation? Why does it have to use regulations that leave distrust in the minds of public servants?
June 17, 1992

Government Orders
We are still not sure that these regulations would not be used to change the benefits received even from de-indexed pensions.
I would like to refer to Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act. Subsection 80(3) says:
(3) In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this act or any other regulations made under this act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
Surely, the government could have done much better in making the Public Service pension regime fairer. It has lost an important opportunity to show the public that it values public servants' contribution to our country and that it believes in fairness and justice.
Why has this clause been put in? Is it for justice? I doubt it very much. Is this a new road we are taking in Parliament where it is not Parliament and the laws that are going to prevail but rather the regulations prepared by-

-senior officials who prepare the regulations for the ministers? I think that in future we can expect to have some serious problems in this country if we are governed by senior officials instead of by acts of Parliament.
The government blithely ignored the recommendations of witnesses who appeared before the Legislative Committee. Public servants are treated with contempt and ignored by this government. It has no respect for public servants, whose morale is very low. It is difficult to achieve professionalism. And of course, there is the government's tendency to favour contracting out. As in the private sector, public servants contribute their fair share to the pension fund, and they are entitled to it. They have made a lifetime investment. The government, the self-appointed sole trustee of the plan, must be fair and frank with its employees in every respect.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an aspect of this bill that I consider extremely important to the affairs of Parliament.
I suppose the area I am concerned with does not directly relate to the matter of pensions. The bill, as described here tonight, is almost an omnibus bill that directs its attention to a number of different types of amendments in pension legislation.
The area I want to highlight has already been referred to by other members here this evening, but I feel I have a very special interest in this area of the law of Parliament. It is an area I work in at the committee level for Parliament. I feel it is essential that the records of Parliament reflect my views, at least. I may be, along with a few other small voices, crying in the wilderness but there is a serious problem here and I want to describe it now.
In clauses 30 and 58 of this bill there are provisions that delegate to the Governor in Council, and therefore the bureaucracy, the right and power to make regulations. That happens in almost every bill we pass here.
It also says in both clauses:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) and the provisions of this act or any other regulations made under this act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
That means that when this House passes this law it is at the same time giving the Governor in Council and the bureaucracy the right to make a regulation that is inconsistent with this act, that flies in the face of this act. This Parliament is stating that regulation will prevail over the law that is passed in this House.
I was shocked when I read that and I went to the effort of taking some legal counsel on the issue. I said that surely this House cannot delegate to someone outside of Parliament the right to pass laws and change the law of Parliament. The answer that I got was that it has been dealt with before in history a few times. It is in fact not

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
unconstitutional. The concept has been universally condemned and is regarded as a constitutional impropriety. I am telling this House now that the concept that it is about to adopt in this bill is regarded by constitutional experts in the western world as a constitutional impropriety.
What I as a member see it as is a situation where the government is continually chipping away at the rights and authority of this Parliament. At the very least, I must make reference to it.
I want to do it because I want to caution this House and Canadians to not take the current equilibrium of checks and balances, constitutional and political, as they exist in this country, for granted. It has been gained at a constitutional history cost over several hundred years beginning with the Magna Carta and going on through the Bill of Rights in the 1800s, the Bill of Rights in Canada under the British North America Act in 1867, the Bill of Rights in 1960, the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights. Here we are in 1992 doing something that, as I have said, has been universally condemned. It was so condemned in the year 1930 when the Donough-more committee clearly stated on the record for the British Parliament whose system we have adopted here in the following words describing the situation: "It cannot but be regarded as inconsistent with the principles of parliamentary government that the subordinate law-making authority should be given the superior law-making authority power to amend a statute which has been passed by the superior authority".
That is fairly wordy, but what I want to ask here is: do members opposite realize that they are on behalf of their electors delegating to the bureaucracy and the Governor in Council the right to make a law that is inconsistent with the law we are passing here tonight? I do not think they know it. I want the record to show veiy clearly that when I vote against this bill, this is the principal reason I vote against it. To be sure, there are others, but this is the principal reason I vote against it.
This concept of delegating in this manner has not been seen in a previous statute to the best of my knowledge. There was one occasion in this House last year when in adopting the new copyright law this House in a provision in the statute stated that in implementing an international copyright convention the Governor in Council could
make changes to adapt to the international convention; the same principle, but at least tied to an international convention.
In this case there is no parameter, no limit, no guidance, no strictures, no measuring stick, but simply a statement that if the Governor in Council passes a regulation inconsistent with this act the regulation prevails. That is law-making overriding the law of Parliament by an Order in Council. That is a tyranny of the majority on the other side of this House because once given it will be bloody hard to get it back.
I have made reference to the previous constitutional history, what it has been called. My colleagues on this side of the House have already described it as a Henry VIII clause. The concept has been around for 400 years. It has been recognized as I have said as a constitutional impropriety. The only way the British Parliament managed to get rid of the Henry VIII clause was when the guy died. When Henry VIII died they removed the law that let the king make a proclamation that could override the rights and the law of Parliament.
This government is following in the same footsteps as Henry VIII. There is no other way to describe it. There are smiles around, Mr. Speaker. It sounds cute but it is very important. It is a very important principle. I cannot help but allude to the President of the Treasury Board as walking in the footsteps or wearing the mantle of or with the crown of Henry VIII. He might even do it well.
Let me put a scenario so that the record can show some of my real concerns. If there were an inadvertent conflict, inadvertent inconsistency, between the rights that will be passed under this statute and the statute itself, one could understand in some cases where you would want to settle the difference. I think it should be settled. The law of the land says that Parliament's law governs. That is what the law says now.
But what happens over time if the Public Service, the Governor in Council, says to heck with this, we have a provision that lets us make a regulation that overrides it. The member shakes his head, "not in your lifetime". We are talking 400 years of constitutional history here.
What if that happens? I am saying that Parliament has just given the government and the Governor in Council the right to make a law that overrides the law we cast in this House. They are incredulous over there. They do not believe that would really happen.
June 17, 1992

It is not going to happen tomorrow. I will take their word on that. We have seen it in this one statute, just this one. What happens if this fall we have another statute with the same provision, and another one next year, and the year after that, because the bureaucrats draft these bills; the minister does not. Soon we have dozens of statutes with the same kind of provision. What if there is a problem in this House some day, a constitutional problem? The government can simply decide to go right ahead and run this country by passing regulations that are inconsistent with the statutes because the concept has been accepted if we pass this bill here in June 1992. They will look back and say that it was okay in June 1992, it must be okay now in 1993, in 1994. That is a great danger. Trying to roll this stuff back is very difficult.
Just two years ago there were Standing Orders that governed procedures in this House. Those Standing Orders were significantly, materially, amended over the objections of the opposition. The reason they passed was because the government had a majority. That incident itself showed how the majority could override the rights of the minority in this House. We are not talking about passage of laws. We are talking about the Standing Orders that determine how Parliament works on a day-to-day basis.
The government that did it was insensitive to the issue. This section is a reflection of that same insensitivity, an insensitivity to the law of Parliament, an insensitivity to our constitutional history, and an insensitivity to what I referred to as the equilibrium of the checks and balances in our constitutional law.
I regret that this is going to be law within a few days or weeks. I want the record to show that and I object to it strongly.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I welcome the opportunity to present a few comments on this bill.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are opposing this bill. There are, I would suggest, two main reasons why we oppose this bill and certainly two reasons why I am opposing this bill. The first reason has to do with the fact that for some time now superannuates at the FSNA have been calling for a joint management board to manage the funds of this pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, as you also will be well aware, there is something in the order of $75 billion or $80 billion sitting
Government Orders
in this account somewhere that is being managed solely by the Treasury Board and for some time the superannuates have been asking for some say in how this is being managed.
To be fair, there is an advisory board around, but I am of the understanding that this board has not been consulted for some five years. What they have been asking for is something that has some real power, a joint management board that would be made up of the government as employer, the employees, superannuates and of course a representative of a spouse, all of whom would actually manage those funds.
The Auditor General in his report this year said that this fund is losing something like a billion dollars a year in interest alone. It is losing that money because of the way the government has invested it. It is very difficult to get answers from the government. The government has been very, very hush-hush and very reluctant to make any comments with respect to investments, but certainly this $75 billion is not sitting in an account in the Bank of Montreal or a credit union somewhere. It has been borrowed by this government. In fact it is part of this $400 billion debt that exists in this country.
That is all very well and fine if in fact there was a joint management board that decided in its wisdom that it wanted to lend the government x millions or billions of dollars on certain terms, but to simply have the government investing and using this money as it sees fit with these promises leaves many superannuates unsure and in fact very frustrated. When you get a report such as the Auditor General's report saying that this account is losing a billion dollars a year in interest and you have the superannuates saying that they cannot find out exactly where these accounts are being invested, in what form and in what fashion and what the plan is for these accounts, it is very frustrating. The government refusing to set up that management board sets a very bad precedent in this country.
In my riding there are a lot of seniors who are CPR pensioners on CPR pension funds and they have a lot of concerns over what has happened with their account. There is a lot of secrecy concerning that fund. It would certainly be important for this government to take some lead in dealing with pension funds in this country. When this baby boom generation reaches retirement there is going to be a lot of need for those funds and by God there had better be some accounting for them and they had better be there and available. Therefore, the fact of a joint management board makes very good sense and

Government Orders
would certainly ensure that these pension funds are being spent and being used properly.
The other disappointing thing is that with the amount of interest and growth that is happening with this fund, I am led to believe that something like only one-half of the interest that is being accrued in this account goes to benefits. That means that the other half of the interest is being accrued to the account itself as well as the employer and employee benefits that are being paid into it. This is a huge fund that is growing at a huge rate. It is paying benefits to superannuates and their death benefits have not risen in I do not know how many years. They have been asking for an increase in death benefits and survival benefits, but this government has been very reluctant and in fact stonewalled them time after time.
The fact that the government has refused to put in this joint management board is one of the key reasons why I cannot support this bill. I know that it is something that pensioners have been calling for and the government has simply ignored them.
The other matter is this business of the regulatory authority that has been given to this government under this bill. I have watched in this House for the last four years and have seen this government show disrespect for this House time and time and time again.
I was involved in a bill called the At and East which had to do with grain being moved by rail cars to eastern Canada. It was announced that this subsidy would be cut in the 1989 budget and it was cut but the law was never changed.
I raised it in the House at the end February in 1990. Within two days the bill was introduced in the House. The government was violating its own law in total disregard for Parliament, in total disregard for this country-no debate in the House; make an announcement and the provision is gone. That is showing complete disrespect for this House, complete disrespect for this country and complete disrespect for Canadian citizens.
We have seen enabling legislation that has come forth and there is a place for enabling legislation. This government has used it time and again to meet its own purposes.
I was involved in the debate on GRIP and we had this enabling legislation in front of us. We never did see the program and we were not getting details that the government knew were going to be in the program. The government pushed the bill through and then implemented the program.
Under the gun control legislation huge control has been given to the minister and to the Cabinet with respect to regulations in areas in which they can make changes to the bill via the regulations. Very important areas in all propriety should be dealt with by this House. The government has again ignored the House.
I never thought I would see the day when the government would put this section in this bill. Others have raised it. It is unbelievable and I am going to read it again into the record. It is amazing. Clause 80(3) says: "In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of any regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) of the provisions of this act or any other regulations made under this act, the provisions of the regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) prevail to the extent of the inconsistency".
In other words, regulations can be made by the Cabinet that are contrary to statutes that this House passes.
I am not sure why we are debating a bill. We are debating a bill here that presumably is going to put into law certain legislation regarding pensions. The government can turn around at its will and through the Cabinet make changes to the regulations. If they are contrary to this statute it does not matter and they will not be debated in this House. That is unbelievable. It is actually unbelievable.
What the hell am I doing here on this bill? If this is what Parliament is coming to we should let the Governor General hold little councils somewhere and pass rules, send us out a letter and let us know what the law is. That is what this amounts to.
It is an insult. It is an insult to every member in the House and it is an insult to every Canadian in this country that this type of garbage is going into legislation and yet the government is doing it. It is very upsetting.

I have a lot of seniors in my riding who have been following this bill quite closely. It is amazing, it is dumbfounding, it is a shock. This bill should not be supported. It should be voted against by every single member of this House.
I want to close if I could by making some comments on MPs' pensions. I have gone on record as saying MPs' pensions should be reviewed.
It is very important the way that our leader has handled this area of the bill, calling for an independent inquiry. The government has agreed to at some point set up an independent committee, independent of this House and of the Senate, to review MPs' pensions. That is what our leader called for, that is what we have been calling for. That is appropriate.
I am a new member in this House. I have not reached my pensionable age and I certainly think it is appropriate that there be some changes. If I had the opportunity to be here long enough I would receive a pension at a relatively young age. Certainly it would be appropriate to have an independent committee make binding recommendations to this House that should be implemented with respect to MPs' pensions.
It is important and I only hope that the government sets that committee up soon. There is no date for this committee, it is somewhere in the future. I do hope that the government will get that committee up and running very soon.
In closing, certainly I cannot support this bill nor can any of my party colleagues support it. I would be surprised at any member in the House who could stand up in full honesty and support this bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments with respect to the hon. member's speech. I congratulate him, especially on his last comments on the pensions of members of Parliament. I agree that we have to look at it. We should be careful of the National Citizens Coalition. It has a different agenda. It wants to raise money for its own right wing causes and it will do it on the back of this issue. MPs would be wise not to give it the issue to ride. As I understand it, the House is proceeding to an
Government Orders
independent committee outside the House on the suggestion of the leader of my party. I am pleased with that.
I wanted to comment about pensions in general. I had raised this before with the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby when she spoke and I raised it with my hon. friend who just spoke. These things are very intertwined; the Canada Pension, the notion of divorced and widowed women concerning pensions and the difficulties that arise.
My concern is that we have not really dealt with a lot of things in this bill when we had the chance. I found the letter I was referring to before and I want to read it and get my friend to comment.
"I am a single mom, widowed since 1977. This year my son, who is 18 now-six feet, six inches and 250 pounds- is out of school and not yet able to find work. He is now disqualified from both family allowance payments and orphans' benefits. I still have to feed him", and at that size you can imagine he eats a lot, "but I have to do so on $150 less a month than I did in January.
I did receive an increase in my Canada Pension in January but because it was directly deposited I have no idea why. I was not sent any explanation, which probably I would have received if it had been mailed to me as previous ones were. I am therefore only out of disposable income by $80. If my son returns to school in September he can reapply for orphan's benefits".
She points out that she has increased taxes as well. She continues:
"Ian, I know I am slightly better off than most single working mothers. I went back to college on life insurance funds and have been able to earn an income in the $20,000 plus range and CPP. However, I own my own house and even though I have had a hard time repairing it, putting it in good repair, I wonder how on earth other single moms even survive.
An article in a Vancouver newspaper recently said that single parenting was not the cause of troubled teens and children as much as poverty was the underlying cause. A friend of mine who is a guard at a juvenile jail agreed her observations there would tend to say that is indeed the case.
Single, impoverished heads of households with children under their roof need immense tax benefits to break the cycle of poverty.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
I know I have never hit the average family income. I pay medical insurance, house taxes and income tax as well as car and house insurance at the same rate as everyone else. These amounts come out of my overstrained disposable income. I often feel I have to pay these amounts and maintenance of household amounts only.
As a caring nation we can and should do better for our children".
I thought that was a very interesting letter. It opens up what I would suggest to the hon. member and I ask him, do we not really have to do more than a bill like this? We have to deal with the whole notion of the Canada Pension Plan and how it relates to a whole variety of people.


Marlene Catterall: This bill has nothing to do with the Canada Pension Plan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It has to do with pensions generally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I suppose the hon. member and other people expect the previous speaker's answer.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments.
It is quite embarrassing to stand here and discuss the pensions that we as parliamentarians have. We have this pension plan that people drool over and yet look at situations such as the hon. member has raised in which there is a single mother who is trying to find enough to get by on. It shows the inequities that exist in this country.
The United Nations named this country the best country in the world in which to live. I think it depends on who you are and where you live in this country.


An hon. member:: Until it came to women and then we were eighth.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Single parents, often mothers, find themselves in very difficult financial situations. There has to be a review of pension legislation and our whole social welfare system and income levels of lower income Canadians. Many of them are there, not because they want to be but because they were forced there. They are victims of circumstance.
My friend has pointed out to me that when the UN looked at women, instead of Canada being number one were were suddenly eighth in the world.
There is a huge need for pension reform and a huge need for income reform in this country. There is a need for programs to help these people who are less fortunate than we are, sitting in this Chamber with our benefits and our pension plans.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the last member who spoke referred again to the words of his leader concerning MPs' pension plans. I must say that I am as mystified now as I was the morning I listened to his leader. We in Ontario are getting used to the idea that the NDP knows how to talk when it is not in office but when it has the opportunity to do something it seems to hit a stage of paralysis.
I am wondering if the member could explain to us clearly what the position of his party is on MPs' pensions. The Leader of the NDP spoke on this matter when this bill was first introduced in the House and made all kinds of comments and then failed totally to make any of the many appropriate motions she could have at that time to demonstrate that she meant what she was saying.
Since that time I have sat in committee for nearly three months with a member of the NDP and I have not heard one motion to the effect of the speech his leader gave in the House or that he just gave.
I heard about a letter from the government but we are here as members of Parliament if we truly want to do something. The member and his leader have had ample opportunity to do so. I wonder if he could explain why he has not and why his leader has not.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the member has a lot of nerve to stand in her place and make those comments. She has never made any comments about her position on MPs' pensions. The Liberal Party has not made its position clear on MPs' pensions. It is the New Democratic Party that has taken the lead in this area. Our leader has stated our position on this pension plan. We have called for a committee to look at MPs' pensions and benefits and bring some binding recommendations into this House.
June 17, 1992

In fact the reason this independent inquiry is happening now is because of our leader. It is not because of what the Liberal Party has done. The Liberal Party has done nothing.
I come from a province that happens to have an NDP government. We have had an NDP government for most of the last 50 years. Under the NDP government we have brought in all kinds of legislation that has helped average Canadians, average residents in Saskatchewan, far more than this hon. member has done either as the federal Liberal Party in power or in the province of Ontario, or anywhere else in this country.
The member need not stand in place and hurl comments at this party. It is the New Democratic Party that has done more for social programs for the average Canadian than any other party in this country.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my few words to this debate on Bill C-55 and speak to some very specific provisions in response to representations which I received from numerous constituents concerning this legislation.
Most constituents are concerned with one thing. They see this bill as a serious threat to their indexed pensions. My constituents are worried and confused about what is in the bill. Although it is thick and complex, they all recognize that it is an obvious attempt by this government to bury its attack on indexation deep within the bill, hoping that no one will notice.
Everyone has noticed, Mr. Speaker; civil servants, the armed forces, and veterans. They have all noticed what this government is doing and they are not going to let it get away with it.
The bill amends four pension acts, public servants, Canadian forces, RCMP, and members of Parliament. This bill could very well be several bills and by all rights should have been separated.
The most controversial element of the bill falls on page 32. It is here that clause 71(3) states that should any of the regulations made under this bill conflict with the act itself that the regulations would prevail.
That is exactly what has caused all the concern. This clause leaves the door open for the government to
Government Orders
sneakily enact a regulation affecting indexation, thereby avoiding having to go to Parliament with it.
I know well how much this government hates going to Parliament. The fisheries minister has avoided Parliament for over a year now with his individual transferable quotas and his dockside monitoring program.
Pensioners across the country protested and groups which appeared before the legislative committee spelled out their concerns.
At first the Treasury Board president dismissed these concerns as irrelevant and unfounded but he finally gave in and proposed an amendment in committee. Its text is on page 34, clause 71(5). It protects against a reduction in benefits at the hands of any regulation but it only offers protection for benefits which have accrued before the day on which the regulation is made. Any and all future benefits are unprotected and up for grabs.
Keith Pickering is a constituent of mine from Inverness. He is an armed forces retiree with over 21 years of service in Canada. I would like to quote a section of his letter to me:
We believed the government, our employer, would look after our
pension fund the same as they looked after their own pension fund. I
find out now that the government does not really care about their
employees or their welfare, as Bill C-55 has shown.
Mr. Pickering and other armed forces retirees recognize that there are some good things in the bill for them such as increasing the supplementary death benefits for armed forces' survivors. But these good things pale in comparison to the potential for disaster should indexation be left vulnerable.
These positive elements in the bill also include pension splitting, coverage for part-time workers, and early retirement for correctional services employees. Because these are long overdue, their presence in Bill C-55 makes it more difficult to oppose the bill as a whole. Their presence pits pensioner against pensioner and is, I believe, all part of the government's "divide and conquer" mentality.
Another constituent called yesterday morning concerned about the pension splitting provisions of the bill. She is worried that this element of the bill will not come into effect in time to help her. She and thousands of other Canadians have been waiting for years for this government to act on this issue. This government has coupled in this bill positive provisions like pension splitting with something as dangerously wrong as dein-

Government Orders
dexation. This is cheating Canadians. It plays political games with their security and livelihood.
All Canadians are realizing that Bill C-55 is just a sneakier version of Bill C-33 in 1985. The government has not learned from its mistake. Indeed, it is pushing ahead with its deindexation agenda despite figures like the following examples: The 1989 poverty line for one person was just over $1,100 per month and for two people, just over $1,500 per month; in 1989 pension amounts were indexed pensions, just over $1,000; unindexed pensions, just over $700. For surviving spouses the amounts are dreadfully less. Indexation is fundamental to people's livelihood following retirement, and these figures clearly illustrate that.
The population of Canada is quickly aging with fewer young people entering the labour force to support them. It provides a real social dilemma and pension reform is long overdue. This is what is necessary and the government can no longer continue to avoid it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Edwards. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: AH those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 46(5)(a), I have been requested by the parliamentary secretary to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the motion now before the House stands deferred until 10.45 a.m. tomorrow, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There are 82 motions in amendment to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.

Motions Nos. 1 and 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 2 and 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to motions Nos. 1 and 3. Accordingly, the Chair will not select them.

Motions Nos. 5 and 7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 5 applying to Motion No. 7.
Motions Nos. 6 and 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to Motions Nos. 5 and 7. Consequently the Chair will not select them.
June 17, 1992



Motions Nos. 9,11 and 13, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 10, 12 and 14, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to motions No. 9, 11 and 13 respectively. Accordingly, the Chair will not select them.
Motions Nos. 16,19, 21 and 23, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, together with Motions Nos. 15 and 18, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 15 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motions Nos. 16 and 18; (b) a negative vote on Motion No. 15 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 16; (c) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 16 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 18; (d) a negative vote on Motion No. 16 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 18; (e) Motion No. 19 will be voted upon separately; (f) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 23; (g) a negative vote on Motion No. 21 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 23.

Motions Nos. 17, 20, 22 and 24 are identical to motions No. 16, 19, 21 and 23 respectively. Accordingly, the Chair will not select them.
Motion No. 25, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 26, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, is identical to motion No. 25. Accordingly, the Chair will not select it.

Motions Nos. 27 and 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, and Motion No. 29, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Government Orders
Motion No. 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops was moved, debated and negatived in committee. Consequently the Chair will not select it.
Motions Nos. 28 and 32, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to Motions Nos. 27 and 31 respectively. Consequently the Chair will not select them.
Motion No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, Motions Nos. 34, 36, 38, 40 and 43, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, together with Motion No. 42, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) Motion No. 33 will be voted on separately; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 36; (c) a negative vote on Motion No. 34 requires the question being put on Motion No. 36; (d) Motions Nos. 38, 40, 42 and 43 will be voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 35, 37, 39, 41 and 44, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to Motions Nos. 34,36,38,40 and 43 respectively. Accordingly, the Chair will not select them.
Motion No. 45, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 46, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, is identical to motion No. 45. Accordingly, the Chair will not select it.

Motions Nos. 47, 49 and 75, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate with a vote on Motion No. 47 applying to Motions Nos. 49 and 75.
Motions Nos. 48, 50 and 76, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to Motions Nos. 47, 49 and 75 respectively. Consequently the Chair will not select them.
Motions Nos. 51 and 53, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders

Motions Nos. 52 and 54, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are identical to motions Nos. 51 and 53 and respectively. Accordingly, the Chair will not select them.
Motion No. 55, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, and motion No. 56, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) if motion No. 55 is carried, it will not be necessary to put motion No. 56; (b) if motion No. 55 is rejected, motion No. 56 will have to be put.

Motion No. 57, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is identical to Motion No. 56. Consequently the Chair will not select it.
Motions Nos. 58 and 59, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, together with Motions Nos. 60, 62 and 64, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 61, 63 and 65, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester are identical to Motions Nos. 60, 62 and 64 respectively. Consequently the Chair will not select them.

Motion No. 66, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 67 and 68 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 69, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops was moved, debated and negatived in committee. For this reason, the Chair will not select it.
Motion No. 70, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 71, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is identical to Motion No. 70. Consequently the Chair will not select it.

Motion No. 72, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops, and motion No. 73, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be grouped for debate and voted upon as follows: (a) if motion No. 72 is carried, it will not be necessary to put motion No. 73; (b) if motion No. 72 is rejected, motion No. 73 will have to be put.

Motion No. 74, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is identical to Motion No. 73. Consequently the Chair will not select it.
Motion No. 77, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 78, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, is identical to motion No. 77. Accordingly, the Chair will not select it.
Motion No. 79, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 80, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, is identical to motion No. 79. Accordingly, the Chair will not select it.

Motion No. 81, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 82, standing in the name of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is identical to Motion No. 81. Consequently the Chair will not select it.
I shall now propose Motions No. 1 and 3 to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor
June 17, 1992

1 'employee from one position to another position at the same level of responsibility for which the employee has already been qualified by the Commission;"
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-26 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 14 and
15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefore:
" "promotion" means the movement of an employee from one position to another position at a higher level of responsibility or at a higher maximum rate of pay than the level of responsibility or the maximum rate of pay of the position the employee previously occupied;".


CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to second reading of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 1 and 3 (p. 12268).
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, these two motions quite properly have been grouped because they are changes to definitions in the act that are very much related one to the other.
Government Orders
One of the major changes in this bill is a move away from the long-standing principle, long-standing to the tune of 70 years since the first Civil Service Act was passed by this Parliament, that the person best qualified for a job gets the job. We will be discussing that particular aspect of this bill in several clauses throughout the bill to demonstrate that is, in fact, the case.
One of the fundamental changes that happens here is that people can now be deployed. Up until now, people have been appointed in the Public Service. That means they are hired into a position for the first time, they are promoted to another position, or they move to another position. In all cases whether they are or are not appointed is based on some method for determining who is the best qualified among those who want that position.
In Bill C-26, we now have a thing called deployment. Members of Parliament may remember over a year ago changes were made, not through legislation but through Orders in Council, that people could be transferred from one position to another without the right of appeal and without any reference to the Public Service Employment Act which for many years has ensured we have a Public Service that is fairly and impartially appointed.
The ability to transfer people without paying any attention to the act that has protected those principles for seven decades was challenged in court. It was thrown out by the courts because the court said very clearly the ability to transfer people was contrary to the merit principle.
With that court decision in hand, the government in this bill is now trying to make legal what the courts have thrown out. The bill says that somebody may be deployed, i.e., transferred from one position to another. Again, the bill very clearly spells out that those deployments have to pay no attention whatsoever to merit or to bilingualism. They are unappealable and an employee who feels unjustly treated has no recourse against the deployment. It is totally within the arbitrary discretion of a manager.
Unfortunately, what the provisions of the act also do is allow deployments to be used for promotions. That is clearly contrary to the merit principle where people move up in the Public Service according to ability, not according to whether the manager likes them or not.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
The distinction between a lateral transfer and a promotion becomes blurred in this legislation. What I have attempted to do with these motions is to get rid of that blurring.
Deployments will now be able to be made within very broad categories with very broad salary ranges and with no accountability. The government will group employees, in one case in groups of up to 110,000 employees, obviously with very many salary levels, very many layers of responsibility and a manager is free to move somebody up that scale or down that scale without any reference to the requirements of the act and without any appeal.
These two motions attempt to clearly define what is a deployment i.e., a lateral transfer, and what is a promotion. The bill now says simply that a deployment is the movement of an employee from one position to another. The government has tried to persuade us that these are not promotions or demotions but simply sideways moves. They are not.
What I have done in Motion No. 1 is to clearly specify that a deployment is at the same level of responsibility and that the person has already qualified on merit to be transferred within that level of responsibility. I have used the precise words the commission gave to the legislative committee in describing what a deployment was going to be used for.
I have difficulty understanding why the government would not accept this amendment to clarify that deployments will not be used as a guise for promotions or demotions. In other words, any movement within the Public Service could become a deployment that is unaccountable and unappealable.
For the same reason, promotion is defined. In the legislation a promotion will from henceforth, if the legislation stays unamended, mean whatever the commission says it means. That is quite simply what the legislation says. A promotion is as defined in the regulations of the commission.
Employees will no longer have a clear definition of what is a promotion, where somebody was improperly awarded without going through competition, and therefore they will have no grounds on which to appeal a promotion they think was unjustly made.
Putting in these amendments is only one small part of what is necessary to ensure that there is still some accountability, still some attention to fair hiring and promotion practices in the Public Service but they are a starting point.
They put words on what the government has said it means in this legislation, on what the Public Service Commission says deployment will be used for. Since we have these motions out for debate, I look forward to hearing why the government does not want to accept, if it does not want to accept, wording that reflects what it says are its stated intentions.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the motions she presented. The important point here concerns the definition of what a promotion is, but the issue is the merit principle.
Will public servants really be able to have confidence in a future where their promotions and working life will be regulated fairly and equitably, with clear definitions of what is meant by promotion, transfer and demotion? To whom will they appeal? That is the big question. I can well understand that the minister wants to give managers more power so that decisions can be made much more quickly.
However, I do not think that he put in place the mechanisms needed to protect public servants who might be abused by some managers. Generally speaking, we know that managers and senior officials are conscientious and think of serving the Canadian public in the best possible way and are very honest.
Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to correct any abuses that may occur. A senior official might have racial prejudices or prefer men over women or vice versa. It would be rather difficult if he discriminated discreetly, not to say hypocritically, by forming teams from his old boys' network around him. He could surround himself with his friends and relatives and like-minded people and keep others out of his circle. He would have the power to transfer some employees outside or inside his section or service and these employees would not be subject to competitions to determine the best candidate for promotion.
June 17, 1992

We know very well that the number of public service occupational categories will be greatly reduced, from 75 now to possibly 24 or 25. This means that in general, for every three categories now there would be only one.
Say that someone works in category 1, the lowest level, and an employer or senior official wants to transfer him. He could easily move from level 1 to level 3. Who could appeal? Who could discuss the good and bad points of this transfer? There will be various gradations between level 1 and level 3, between level 4 and level 6 and between level 7 and level 9. Managers will be able to transfer employees as they like and also, unfortunately, according to their prejudices.
So the important point to keep in mind is that with a quarter of a million employees, there must be transfers, promotions and even demotions and it is very important to have mechanisms so that employees who feel wronged, overlooked, mistreated or discriminated against in the decision can appeal.
It is true that appeals can now take a long time. I would have preferred the minister to deal with the length of appeals instead of reducing the opportunity to appeal.
So, Mr. Speaker, with great regret, having participated in many meetings of the legislative committee that studied the new public service bill, I realized that the merit principle will no longer exist in the Public Service of Canada, one of the best, if not the best, public service in the world.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to very briefly concur with the words spoken by my two colleagues from Ottawa West and Carleton- Gloucester.
The essence of these motions is to try to address one of the fundamental concerns that we have about Bill C-26 and the amendments that it brings about to the management of the Public Service system in Canada. These changes undermine the principle that promotion and appointment are based on the principle of merit, first and foremost.
This principle, which has been the bedrock of the Public Service management over the last number of
Government Orders
decades in Canada, is fundamental to having the kind of capable, competent, independent and non-partisan Public Service that Canadians have the right to expect and require.
In particular, the merit principle manages to eliminate the political patronage that at one time characterized appointments to the Public Service and also is the method of ensuring that bureaucratic patronage, which in some ways is even more insidious and more difficult to deal with than political patronage, does not become the order of the day in making appointments or promotions.
It is crucial that we in the House of Commons restate again the importance we place on this principle and the concern we have that this legislation is likely to undermine it.
As an example of the criticisms that we have, allow me to quote from Hugh Winsor's commentary that appeared on May 23 in The Globe and Mail. He wrote: "Civil service managers would also be given leeway to redeploy people within categories without competitions, something the Treasury Board attempted to do under the existing Public Service Employment Act and was rapped on the knuckles for it by a federal court judge. The Public Service Commission has delegated much of the responsibility for hiring to the deputy ministers in individual departments and admitted in its most recent annual report there has been too much abuse of the system. Too many deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers are appointing their cronies and redeploying people they do not like or putting people in allegedly temporary acting positions without going through the competition process, the commission said".
This is really what we are trying to get at here. We are not saying that the Public Service administration needs to be burdened down with red tape and bureaucracy or that managers should be hamstrung in their ability to manage, none of that is appropriate to these criticisms.
It is crucial that the integrity of the merit principle be preserved, not only for the benefit of the people who labour daily within the Public Service and have hope of promotion and career advancement but also for the benefit of the people of Canada who deserve to be served by a Public Service that continues to understand and implement this principle of meritorious reward for effort.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate I find what I see taking place here very disturbing.
The other members who spoke discussed promotion on the merit principle. What we are also seeing happen is a loss of morale within the Public Service. There are people in CEIC centres and other places telling the unemployed: "Don't bother to come here, there are no jobs. We cannot find you any jobs".
Prior to these changes, and the proposed changes in this bill, the people in these centres would go out of their way, they would go that extra mile, to try to help the unemployed. This is lowering the morale of these people. They do not know where they are going to be. They do not know that if they do their job well they are going to be the people who are selected for promotion.
I am scared at what I see happening here, because we are taking this away. This is something where the Public Service says yes, there have been a lot of problems with it over the years. There has been quite a bureaucratic nightmare in a lot of cases. I hesitate to warn the government that we cannot change these things this drastically, to give this power to managers and just to throw out the merit principle. I find this bothers me and I know it bothers the Public Service of this country. It certainly bothers the public of this country because you have people coming to you. You know the old saying: "If you don't know somebody, you are not going to get that promotion". This is an area that certainly the public is very concerned about. I am sure that if we allow this amendment that has been put forward, it will make this bill that much more palatable.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this approach on the part of members opposite. They say "here it comes". I do not understand why they would think "here it comes". I suppose the President of the Treasury Board is a little antsy. He knows he is moving a bad bill and he is afraid that he is going to get roasted for it. I recall roasting him one time before. It drove him to prayer.
I think what he would want to do is reconsider his view.
I ask him to seriously reconsider his view of clause 2 of this bill because my very hon. and distinguished colleague from Ottawa West has moved an amendment that
makes great sense and will save us from the difficulties envisaged by the hon. member for Hillsborough.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa South. I did not have the benefit of hearing all of the speech of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, so I was not able to say that he dwelt on quite the same terrors that were outlined by the other members in relation to what would happen with this bill if it is passed in its existing form. The President of the Treasury Board, who has a significant responsibility for the Public Service in this country, should know better than to introduce a bill such as this with this kind of change in the House.
I know what is going on and I think the public of Canada knows what is going on. It is a power grab by senior public servants. The minister is being used as their tool for the purpose of getting this power grab. They are taking over the question of promotion and transfer in the Public Service in a way as well as demotion-promotion, demotion and transfer in the Public Service-in a way that is totally unprecedented in our system. Ultimately the responsibility for that is going to fall on the minister's head, so that when an incompetent gets shifted or moved into a higher position without competition in the face of-


An hon. member:: The Peter principle.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, no, no. The hon. member for Hillsborough would not want to call it the Peter principle. If someone of lesser competence gets transferred to a position for which there were better applicants, there is going to be a problem. It is going to create problems for ministers. It is going to create problems for deputy ministers and worse, it is going to create problems for the public of Canada who have reason to expect a reasonable level of service from their Public Service.
What this bill is doing is taking away any sense of responsibility for these appointments from the independent Public Service Commission. Far be it from me to stand here today to defend the Public Service Commission. I have moved amendments to this bill which we will be discussing another day that would restrict its powers. In my view it has not shown itself to be responsive to the wishes of Parliament to which it is responsible. The hon. member for Burlington perhaps disagrees. If so, I invite him to rise and make a speech. I would be glad to hear from him on this subject.
June 17, 1992

I think generally the Public Service Commission has not been responsive to Parliament to which it is responsible. It is not responsible to the government. It is responsible to this Parliament, this House and the other place. In my submission, based on past evidence that I have seen, it has been very unresponsive to the demands of this House. As a result, I introduced a private member's bill which would have brought it to heel. It would have created for it in the statute things that it should have done by regulation as recommended by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and which report it ignored. Many of the amendments that I have proposed to BUI C-26 are based on that refusal or ignorance, if you wish to call it that, on the part of the Public Service Commission to deal with amendments that I put forward.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is on the committee that has studied this again and has made a report simUar to the one originally proposed by the predecessor committee in I believe 1987. That report was ignored by the Public Service Commission.
I have no particular desire to stand here today and defend that commission. What I do defend very vigorously is the importance of the independence of the Public Service and the importance of a lack of political interference in the promotion, transfer and demotion process in the Public Service.
If the merit principle is removed, what is replacing it? That is the question that is not answered by this legislation. A blanket power is given to promote, demote or transfer without regard to merit. If merit is taken out, what is the regard for? What is the promotion, demotion or transfer to be based on? The minister's whim? Surely the President of the Treasury Board does not want to have to take personal responsibUity for every transfer, promotion or demotion in the Public Service of Canada.


An hon. member:: I suspect you are right.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He says he suspects I am right. Then let us fix this bUl so that the minister does not have to take that responsibUity. Let us make an objective judgment that somebody can look at.
I know the minister perhaps would prefer a subjective judgment but his answer indicated he would not.
Government Orders
Let us have an objective measure by which promotions, demotions and transfers can be judged and let us base it on the merit principle. What could be simpler than that? It has worked for us in the past. It can continue to work for us.
What the hon. member for Ottawa West has proposed is that clause 2 of the bUl be amended so that deployment means the transfer of an employee from one position to another position at the same level of responsibUity for which the employee has already been qualified by the commission. In other words, it can only be a lateral transfer if it is a deployment. It cannot be a demotion and it cannot be a promotion.
Second, on the term promotion, which is left wide open in the minister's bUl-the minister points his finger at me-let me read his definition to him. I find it hard to believe a minister with the intelligence and the abUity of the President of the Treasury Board would propose such a ridiculous bUl to the House; a distinguished man. The Minister of Justice sitting beside him is a well educated individual as well. One would have thought she might have read this bUl and said, "We cannot have this. As a government we could not introduce anything so sUly". She sits sUent in her seat. I do not think she has spoken yet on this bUl. I would have thought she might.
Promotion says the bUl "has the meaning assigned by the regulations of the commission". Thlk about a carte blanche for the commission. The commission can do whatever it wants. It does not listen to Parliament. We have evidence of that already.
What the hon. member for Ottawa West proposed is that promotion means the movement of an employee from one position to another position at a higher level of responsibUity or at a higher maximum rate of pay than the level of responsibUity or the maximum rate of pay of the position the employee previously occupied. What is wrong with that definition?
I say to the President of the Treasury Board, come back to the House and tell us what is wrong. Never mind running for comfort to the Chair. Come and speak in the House and tell us what is wrong with this bUl. This amendment makes sense. This amendment is reasonable. This amendment upholds the principles on which the Public Service has functioned lo these many, many, many years.

June 17, 1992
Government Orders
The hon. member for Burlington probably cannot even remember when it was different. Certainly I cannot. I am sure the youthful member for Ottawa West cannot.
The hon. member is sounding as though he is a violin. I am sorry he feels that way about this speech. Perhaps he has heard it all before. If so, surely he should change his tune and get up and object to this bill.
If he had objected in caucus, if the hon. member for Burlington had raised this issue in caucus, he might have got somewhere with this bill. As it is, it is left to us in opposition in this House to publicly condemn the government for its action in proposing this kind of amendment in the House.
I see the hon. member for Cambridge getting into the act as well. He must know this is wrong. He has heard my
very reasonable arguments. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board is getting some advice as to whether this amendment should not be accepted and if it could be done without defeating the government.
Certainly we would not regard it as a question of confidence if this amendment were to carry tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I invite you to put the question to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but it being 10 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made on Tbesday, June 9, 1992, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 18,1992