NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 1108

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Welcome, colleagues, to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-78.

I need to get a little bit of business done first. It will take a few seconds. As you know, we had a few witnesses for Bill C-78, and there are some expenses. So I have a motion prepared here by the clerk: that the committee approve a budget submission in the amount of $10,000 for witnesses in relation to Bill C-78. That's an upset limit.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, you said that's an upset limit. Did you mean a maximum of $10,000?

The Chairman: Did I use that word correctly? I meant to say maximum, up to $10,000.

Mr. John Williams: I'm not sure we should just put a limit on it, Mr. Chairman. I think that until such time as we find out exactly what's going to happen with Bill C-78, we shouldn't just put a limit on the dollar amount. This is a big bill, as you know, all 200 pages, and it's going to affect many—

The Chairman: Can I make you a deal, John? How about we get this one done so that we can take care of the business to date, and if we need more, we'll come back to you?

Mr. John Williams: Okay. I would like to amend the motion, Mr. Chairman, to say that we approve an interim payment of $10,000 and be prepared to accept motions to increase that if necessary.

The Chairman: I don't think changing the motion changes the fact that what you're saying is the case in any event.

Mr. John Williams: I would rather just have it say what we mean, rather than say something we don't mean.

• 1110

The Chairman: Would you accept that what you've said is now in the record of the minutes?

Mr. John Williams: It's definitely in the record of the minutes. There's no question about that.

The Chairman: Marlene has moved a motion that we approve—

Mr. John Williams: I did act to make a formal amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay, move your amendment.

Mr. John Williams: I move that the motion be amended to read “an interim expenditure of $10,000, recognizing that this committee will request more if necessary”.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues.

We're going to start, colleagues—

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, my apologies for interrupting again, but I do notice that the orders of the day say that we're going to engage in clause-by-clause consideration. While I'm a member of the committee today, I'm not totally familiar with the rules of the natural resources and government operations committee. Perhaps the clerk could tell me exactly what is proper notice of motion for the clause-by-clause consideration. Do you have that requirement in this committee?

The Chairman: Normally, motions require 48 hours' notice.

The past practice with bills is that we gave notice to the committee that we were looking for amendments, if there were any. We have received amendments, which have been duly recorded and distributed. So I think sufficient effort has been made to apprise everybody of that fact. If there were further amendments at this point, I would suggest they would go to the report stage in the House.

Mr. John Williams: But my point, Mr. Chairman, is that if you have a procedure in this committee by which you require 48 hours' notice of a motion, then you can't, just at a whim of the chair, say it doesn't apply to this motion, it applies to that motion, but it doesn't apply to the next one. If you have that, then we should have had 48 hours' notice of the motion.

The Chairman: Are you objecting to the government's amendments?

Mr. John Williams: No. I'm just objecting to the orders of the day and the fact that we didn't have notice of motion to go to clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You don't have to have it. But in any event, it was given—

Mr. John Williams: Why don't you have to have it?

The Chairman: It was given. The notice was out.

An hon. member: Check your office.

The Chairman: John, with great respect, the notice has been out. But maybe because you're not a permanent member of the committee—

Mr. John Williams: I'm not disputing the fact that the notice is out, Mr. Chairman, but we're talking about a motion to go to clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: It's not a motion to go to clause-by-clause. It's a meeting to conduct the business of clause-by-clause.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): You don't need a motion. When you review a bill, it's automatically guaranteed that you will at some point in time go to clause-by-clause. So it's not required as a motion.

Mr. John Williams: But, Mr. Chair, after the witnesses have been heard, it's then normal practice to say we've heard enough witnesses, so let's introduce a motion to go to clause-by-clause. But we haven't had that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: With great respect, Mr. Williams, all proper procedures were followed. The meeting was duly advertised to members.

Mr. John Williams: I appreciate that, yes. I recognize that.

The Chairman: We can, in accordance with the rules, proceed with clause-by-clause study, notwithstanding your point. You don't need a motion to go to clause-by-clause by a committee.

Mr. John Williams: Other committees require it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I don't think so. John, with your indulgence, we're going to continue with the business of the day.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, if you're going to insist that we continue with the business of the day, I would move that if it is found to be a requirement that a motion be approved prior to proceeding with the bill, any motions on clause-by-clause be ruled out of order if it's found that we do require a motion to enter clause-by-clause.

• 1115

The Chairman: John, in my view, it wouldn't be appropriate to have a motion to that effect. But let's say you found out after this meeting was over that something wrong was done. Then I'm sure there is an appeal mechanism available to you.

Mr. John Williams: And everything we've done as far as clause-by-clause would be null and void.

The Chairman: A motion of this committee to that effect, yea or nay, wouldn't nullify whether such an event happened. So what I would leave you to do is judge for yourself whether the proper procedure was followed, and then, if you feel an appeal is appropriate, pursue that through normal channels. Okay?

Do you have a point of order, Pierrette?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I understood you to say that we don't need notice to go into clause by clause today. Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

The Chairman: No, I said proper notice was given that we're proceeding with clause-by-clause today.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: This notice you are talking about would have been given to us, members of the committee?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: When?

[English]

The Chairman: That was a couple of days ago, about two days ago.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Oh? It must have gotten lost somewhere.

[English]

The Chairman: Pierrette, you'd have to check with the regular members of the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Okay. It is being sent to them.

[English]

The Chairman: It is a matter of public record that the notice was sent out in adequate time.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Okay.

[English]

The Chairman: Is this a point of order, John?

Mr. John Williams: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I haven't finished.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sorry. Pierrette has not finished.

Mr. John Williams: My apologies.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Excuse me.

You also said that there might be an appeal mechanism available if we want to contest the fact that this committee is meeting today. I have to admit quite frankly that I don't know of any such mechanism, although I have been here for ten years.

[English]

The Chairman: I was only using John's words. He wanted to put a motion that if today's proceedings were not appropriate or in order, everything essentially be nullified. I said to him that a motion to that effect wouldn't even be in order, that if he, in his opinion, found that the procedures or proceedings were not bona fide proceedings, he could take it up in some other way—maybe the Speaker. I don't know what the procedure is for an appeal, but I think he could maybe stand up in the House and say his privileges as a member were... or something like that.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: It ends here, Mr. Chairman, as everyone knows. Your ruling is final.

[English]

The Chairman: As far as I'm concerned, it is, but if John feels differently when it's over, then he can use his own devices to figure a way to—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Let's move forward, shall we?

The Chairman: We'll allow a couple of minutes here.

Is it a point of order, John?

Have you finished, Pierrette?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes.

[English]

Mr. John Williams: We have to recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the Speaker has ruled on many occasions that committees are masters of their own houses and it's not for the Speaker to interfere with the workings of committees. Therefore, to suggest that we can appeal to the Speaker is quite erroneous, because we know what his ruling is going to be—not that it's right or wrong, but the fact that he has no jurisdiction on the matter.

The Chairman: What was the point of your motion in the first place?

Mr. John Williams: My point is that I'm firmly of the belief that before you can move from hearing witnesses to commencing clause-by-clause, which is the final stage of a committee before we report it to the House, there's a motion introduced in committee that we go clause-by-clause. That motion notice hasn't been given, appropriate notice hasn't been given, and the motion hasn't been moved, and you want to go clause-by-clause.

I'm saying you can't do that, but you're saying, yes, you can. Therefore, I would ask that the clerk specifically tell us on what basis you feel that you can move ahead without notice of motion, without the motion, and go into clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: John, the clerk is not obligated to be involved in the discussions.

Mr. John Williams: Then I ask you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I think the simplest way to resolve this is to tell you that, in my opinion, the proper notice was given for this meeting, and I'm making a ruling to that effect. I'm simply going to ask the committee to support me on that ruling, and then we'll get on.

Those in favour that the proper procedure was followed in getting us to this point...

• 1120

Ms. Marlene Jennings: This committee considers itself properly and duly notified that we would be moving to clause-by-clause on Thursday, May 6, at 11 a.m.

The Chairman: Essentially a motion supporting the—

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, there's a question. When we have motions, even if they are notices of motion, 48 hours in advance or 24 hours in advance, they are motions placed before the committee.

The Chairman: We don't have to have a motion to decide to go to clause-by-clause. You only need notice that there is going to be a meeting to deal with clause-by-clause, and that was properly given, Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, so each clause is automatically on the agenda by serving notice to the committee that this will be the debate of the day?

The Chairman: Yes. And I think there is evidence in the fact that we have received motions from the Reform Party acknowledging that clause-by-clause would be pursued today and that proper notice was given.

Okay, Werner.

Tony, a point of order?

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Yes. If Mr. Williams would cite where that information is and not leave it on gut instinct or in the mind, I think it would at least, aside from what you've stated and the clerk has stated, make everyone aware of where he's getting his information from. But right now there is no such—

The Chairman: If you don't mind, Tony—and I appreciate that advice—we can get into a debate over it, but what I'd rather do, if I have the committee's support, is have—

Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: I'm asking the committee if they're supporting my decision that everything was done properly to get to this meeting.

All in favour?

Mr. John Williams: I have a point of order, which I think takes preference, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: All opposed? Okay.

Now, what's your point of order, John?

Mr. John Williams: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this committee does not run by rules and whims approved by a show of hands. There are fundamental democratic rules in place. They are in place, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: No, John, you're out of order. The committee was not making rules, it was supporting my ruling. That's different, and I based my ruling on precedent and my knowledge of the rules—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: This committee is its own master, so let's move on.

The Chairman: —such as they are. So with great respect, John, your point of order is out of order. We've dealt with the matter, so with that, we're going to proceed.

I want to point out that clause 1, as normal, goes to the end, because it's the short title. Past practice here has been that we will group in series clauses for which there are no amendments. So I'm going to ask—

Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, could you repeat that? I didn't quite catch it.

The Chairman: The past practice of this committee on clause-by-clause is that if there is a series of clauses, and in that series there are no amendments, we will group the clauses. So I'm going to ask the committee, shall clauses 2 to 8 carry?

Mr. John Williams: Debate.

The Chairman: Okay. You can debate.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're talking of clause 2 all the way through to clause 3?

The Chairman: Clauses 2 to 8.

Mr. John Williams: Clauses 2 to 8.

An hon. member: It says nine.

The Chairman: But the Reform amendment refers to—I made that point earlier—clause 9. So we have to go up to clause 8.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): So the debate right now, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it is on clause 1 through 8.

The Chairman: Clauses 2 through 8. Clause 1 is at the end.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry, clauses 2 through 8, and then, Mr. Chairman, clause 9 will be brought to the table to deal with the Reform amendment.

The Chairman: Yes. Any clause where there's an amendment we will deal with as a stand-alone.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chairman: So John has indicated he wants to speak to clauses 2 through 8.

Mr. John Williams: Do I have to deal with them in order, Mr. Chairman? I can just talk about anything that's in here regarding clauses 2 through 8.

The Chairman: Yes, if they're relevant to the clauses. You might want to quote, in your comments, the clauses to which you are referring.

Mr. John Williams: We're talking here about the constitution of the board, which is clause 3. What we're doing is setting up a private sector board, which is subclause 3(1), but in subclause 3(2) it says:

The Board is not an agent of Her Majesty.

These are moneys that come from the taxpayer, and we have witnesses who are here from the Treasury Board; perhaps they can tell us why the board is not an agent of Her Majesty when they're dealing with Her Majesty's funds or funds that have been provided by Her Majesty. I look forward to the comments from them.

• 1125

Ms. Sharon Hamilton (Assistant Secretary, Pensions Division, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): The board is not an agent of Her Majesty, will not enjoy crown immunity, and will hold legal title to the assets in the pension funds.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, in subclause 3(4), it says:

The head office of the Board shall be in the National Capital Region as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.

I find it rather unfortunate that we would do this. The moneys that are contributed are contributed by taxpayers right across the country, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder why we would put in legislation that we want to keep the head office right here in the National Capital Region versus Edmonton, which is close to my riding, or Winnipeg or Vancouver, or even Toronto, for example. This is an institution that's going to be dealing with many of the financial institutions.

Why does everything always happen to be here in the National Capital Region? I think, for example, of the affront to westerners when the head office of Air Canada was moved from Winnipeg to Montreal; and I think of the CF-18 contract that was taken from Winnipeg and given to Montreal. This seems to be an ongoing problem, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to think that we don't have to put in legislation that the National Capital Region has to be the head office of all government. Why does it have to be that way? We would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the board, who are going to be handling multi-billions of dollars when it's fully up and running, $100 billion of money, would be capable of figuring out for themselves where their head office should be.

The Chairman: Shall we invite a response from the witnesses? Is there a requirement that there be...

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I think this is a fairly customary approach. I think this board has a level of accountability to Parliament. Also, in terms of the plan members, many of their national associations, their representatives, are located in this area, so the notion would be that the head office of the board would be located in Ottawa. It doesn't necessarily mean that the operations of the board would be located here.

The Chairman: Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think, Mr. Chairman, on that particular point there are all kinds of other offices that operate on behalf of the federal government, or on the part of national groups, that are not located in Ottawa. They're in Calgary, they're in Winnipeg, they're in Halifax, they're in Montreal, and so why does this one have to be here? Why could it not be in another place? Why is it specified in the bill? Why can't the board decide where its head office should be? Why does it have to be part of the legislation?

Mr. Tony Ianno: Why don't you move a motion to have it in your riding?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think it would be a great idea. This board should be in Kelowna. We'd love to have them there.

The Chairman: Any further points? Mr. Earle, then Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I want some clarification. It was mentioned earlier that the corporation is not an agency of the crown, but now we come to subclause 4(3), where it speaks about the minister:

(3) The Minister shall determine from which funds the cost shall be paid, but no amount shall be taken out of the Canadian Forces Pension fund or the Canadian Forces Superannuation Investment Fund

Can you explain how the minister ties in with having to give approval for these things if there's no agency relationship there?

• 1130

Mr. Tony Ianno: On a point of order, a lot of the questions seem to be more in terms of a debate. They had the opportunity when the minister was here to ask the questions on the specifics of the bill. What is happening is that they are now starting to question the intent of the word.

The Chairman: I can't agree with you on this, Tony. Even though they had opportunities before, there still is in clause-by-clause opportunity to ask—that's why the officials are here—a few questions and to have some discussion. I don't think it's going to go on interminably, but I think we have to allow some latitude for that.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Thank you.

The Chairman: So, Gordon, it's yours. Back to you.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I wanted to understand the role of the minister in this vis-à-vis the statement that was made earlier in terms of the agency...

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The board is not an agent of Her Majesty, but there are charges that may be made against the funds for which the board is responsible, and obviously the benefits payable to employees out of these pension plans are chargeable to those funds.

In addition, charges can be made to the funds in terms of the costs of administering the pension plan, and the board, for example, may charge to the funds its own operating cost. The only charges that can be made against the pension funds are those that are specified in the legislation, so this is allowing for the charging of the costs to the pension fund.

The Chairman: Okay, Gord. Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here with all these wonderful friendly faces around the table for the first time. I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, I was put into this particular position. Unfortunately, our regular member couldn't make it, so I'm very pleased to be here.

However, I have a question on subclause 4(1), page 3, the objects and powers of the particular board. Paragraph 4(1)(b) says:

to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return, without undue risk

That's very laudable obviously, and I think we all try to do that in our own personal portfolios. But I wonder, to the staff, have any benchmarks been set or would you consider this to be a criterion struck by the board as to what kind of benchmarks they would identify as being that maximum rate of return?

Isn't it laudable that we're going to have a maximum rate of return? But if we don't have any benchmarks, like a Scotia McLeod or something of that nature, how does one know that it's a maximum level of return, Mr. Chairman, and certainly without risk of loss? I find that's almost impossible to do in this particular type of market we have currently.

Again, how would the board identify those types of investment vehicles without any risk of loss? If they can do it, I would like to give them my portfolio at the same time. What types of criteria would there be in place and when would the board set these criteria?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: If you look at the rest of paragraph (b), it says the board will operate:

having regard to the funding, policies and requirements of the pension plans... and the ability of those plans to meet their financial obligations.

In other words, this board, like any other board that is responsible for investing a pension fund, will have to establish an approach, a statement of investment policies and goals, that takes into account the obligations of the pension plans.

On the question of risk, obviously in investment there is always risk. What the prescription is here is “without undue risk”. I think investing pension funds is a fairly well-developed art in Canada and—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, again, there are different levels of risk. What is the definition of “undue risk”? The bond market may well have undue risk associated with it depending on the markets themselves. How does one define that undue risk?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I think that primarily it will be up to the board to determine what it feels is an undue risk, but the first priority of the new investment board will be to look at the pension plan for which it is making investments, to look at what its risk tolerances may be, what the market situation may be, to look at the long-term outlook in the board's best opinion, and to arrive at what they feel is a balanced, reasonable approach. And they will be accountable for their results.

• 1135

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I assume, Mr. Chairman, through you, that the board would have at its beck and call advisers—obviously substantial investment advisers—who would allow them to identify the risk of any type of financial vehicle.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Certainly the board, given its fiduciary responsibilities, is going to want the best possible advice they can get.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We hope so. We anticipate that will happen.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: They do have an obligation that is quite serious, so they will want to operate as professionally as possible.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And quite a serious financial fund as well. We're not talking about a small fund here; it's a very large fund.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point of order. I do take some exception with respect to my portfolio and what was suggested over here on the Liberal side. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when in fact I had a real job and did make some money, so my portfolio is perhaps much larger than the gentleman opposite suggested. So I do take some exception to that.

The Chairman: Thank you for that.

I'd like to point out to you that our researcher, June, indicated that the phrases you are questioning are essentially the same in the CPP Act.

Mr. John Williams: What was that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Regarding the point of Rick's question about undue risk and so on, those are exactly the same words as in the CPP Act.

Mr. John Williams: Perhaps we should...

The Chairman: I'm just helping you a little bit. I'm helping you, Rick, that's all.

Did I see Pierrette put her hand up?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: It says in clause 4(1)b) that the board is to invest its assets with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return. What do you say to the witnesses from the RCMP who came here and talked about ethical investments in businesses where they might have to intervene during a strike? This matter of ethical investments is a new concept going around at the present time. What does the bill provide in this regard? It seems to talk only about a maximum rate of return.

[English]

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The question of investment policies for pension plans has been a topic of debate on several occasions. Certainly there have been discussions; for example, I believe the Ontario teachers' plan has had some pressure from teachers around certain investment approaches they've adopted or certain investments they have made.

I think the general answer is when you have an investment authority that has a fiduciary responsibility to the contributors and beneficiaries of the pension plan, they have to put the best interests of the pension plan members first and they must make their investments within that context. The guidance that is given to the investment board here is very clearly toward the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries with a view to achieving a maximum rate of return. Those must be the guiding considerations for the members of the investment board.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Merci, Madam.

The Chairman: Thank you, Pierrette.

Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I want to move it to a different area here that has to do with the board of directors. I noticed the minister appoints the board of directors, but I noticed the board's powers are circumscribed somewhat; in fact the limitations are indicated. The board of directors may not delegate the power to appoint officers to the board or to fix their remuneration. So I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, who does?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The board would do that themselves. They must do that themselves; they cannot delegate that to another officer of the board.

• 1140

Mr. Werner Schmidt: So the chief executive officer of the board must determine the individual salary of a clerk who is working for the board?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The board must determine the terms and conditions applicable to the staff of the board.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: But that's not what it says. It says “fix their remuneration”.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Could you give me your reference on that?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes. The reference is on page 6, paragraph 8(2)(d).

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: These are powers of the board of directors.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It says they may not do that.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Yes, they may not delegate the power to appoint officers to the board—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, I understand that.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: —which would be, for example—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have no trouble with that one. It's the second part I have difficulty with: “or fix their remuneration”.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: They may not delegate the power to fix their remuneration. The board itself must determine the remuneration for board officers.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, I repeat the question. Does this mean all persons who would be working with the officers of the board?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Well, I know that “officers” does not include all employees. That would be—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It's not defined in the act.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: —an official officer.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: The point is, though, that very thing raises a real question—“or their remuneration”. Does their remuneration tie into their particular area of involvement, for example, the people they employee directly in their suite of offices? Does this exclude them or does this include them?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I'm not sure I really understand your question. I'm sorry. Clause 8 is about the powers of the board of directors to delegate their authorities. One of the things they may not delegate is their authority to appoint the officers of the board. That would include, presumably, the auditors of the board, the chief executive officer, and the chief financial officer. For example, they could not delegate to a chief executive officer the power to appoint or fix the salary of the chief financial officer.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay, that clarifies that part. But the part that isn't clear is who the officers of the board are.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The board will decide which officers they need, I think.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, that's exactly the point. That means the board could appoint anyone they wanted to as an officer. If the officers aren't defined in the act, they could have a whole hierarchy of people, going all the way to the person who calls the taxis for the chief executive officer being officers of the board. That's my whole point. Who is an officer of the board? It's not clarified.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I'll invite Mr. Peacock.

The Chairman: Are there any volunteers? Mr. Peacock.

Mr. Bryce Peacock (Director, Pension Financial Analyst, Pensions Division, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): The board would be subject to—you'll notice it later in the bill—special examinations to ensure they're operating in an efficient manner, etc. So they wouldn't just be going out and hiring as many people as they pleased without looking at the efficiencies of the operation. We must presume they're going to act in a professional manner and hire those people they feel are best.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: But this is not my point, Mr. Chairman. My point is that the board designates individuals as officers. I haven't seen all aspects of the bill, but it seems to me there's an omission in it. It does not clarify what an officer of the board is, or who is an officer. Does the board simply willy-nilly decide, well, this is an officer, and by doing that, be able to do all kinds of things? They can appoint their friends. They can appoint their relatives. They can elevate somebody. They can. I've seen this happen.

My friend Tony Ianno says this isn't true. Yes, it is true. I've seen it happen more than once.

Mr. Tony Ianno: You weren't on the board.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, I wasn't on the board where that happened. I was never on the board. But I've seen it happen on boards where I happened to be the auditor, where I did have to point it out and say, look, that's not an officer.

The Chairman: We'll have one last crack at an answer.

• 1145

Mr. Bryce Peacock: Again, as you mentioned before, that's another provision taken right out of the CPP board.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It doesn't make it right.

The Chairman: I will give Gordon the last word on this and then we'll call the question.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I want to return to the question of ethical investments, because this is a very important principle here. We're dealing with funds that are being transferred from the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and public servants.

I know this has been asked about and addressed, but I still have a point of concern about it. The question was raised about investing in areas that are not necessarily considered ethical or in the best interests of people, for example, the tobacco industry, which is encouraging our young people to smoke and so forth and contributing to health problems, or other areas of concern that would cause social problems.

You mentioned that the bottom line is the maximum rate of return for the beneficiaries under the plan and that's under paragraph 4(1)(b). But I notice paragraph 4(1)(a) says “in the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries”. Perhaps some of those beneficiaries and contributors—it doesn't say financial interest there, it just says in the best interests—may not feel it's in their best interests to invest in some of these unethical kinds of investments. Is there a conflict between paragraphs 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b)?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I don't believe so. I believe the directors of the pension investment board have a fiduciary obligation to the members of the pension plans to manage the pension moneys to achieve the maximum security of benefits, through maximizing the financial returns of the programs. This is a normal kind of fiduciary obligation a person charged with investing in a pension fund would have.

There has been debate and discussion around putting directions, other than the fiduciary financial best interests approach, in various pension plans over the years. But the conclusion has always been that the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries are best served by maximizing the financial well-being of the pension fund.

The Chairman: I'll get you to wrap it up. I'll let John have a very short question, and then we will call the question.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Okay. How would the beneficiaries under this plan hold the board accountable for making investments in their best interests, whether financially or ethically? What's the process whereby the board could be held accountable to the beneficiaries, if the beneficiaries have some concern about how their funds are being invested?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The board is accountable to Parliament. It must report annually on its performance. It must make its annual reports available to the plan members. It must make its bylaws, etc., available for review by the plan members. It must meet annually with the pension advisory committees for each of the pension plans to discuss the board's activities. So there are a number of avenues.

The Chairman: Thank you, Sharon. Thank you, Gord.

John, a very short one.

Mr. John Williams: You're not trying to limit my debate, Mr. Chairman, are you? Don't I have the right to debate this?

The Chairman: The question has been called, but I'm seeking some leniency from the committee to let you have a short question.

Mr. John Williams: I'm looking under clause 2, where it deals with the definition of subsidiaries. It says:

“subsidiary” means a corporation that is wholly owned by the Board directly or indirectly through any number of subsidiaries each of which is wholly owned directly or indirectly by the Board.

I know that is a definition, but we know later on the bill obviously deals with subsidiaries, otherwise the definition wouldn't be there.

• 1150

I then go to paragraph 8(2)(e). Under the duties of the board, which our witnesses have said cannot be delegated, it says:

approve the annual financial statements of the Board and any other financial statements issued by the Board.

We're talking here about subsidiaries that can be indirectly owned by the board under the definition. They cannot delegate the responsibility to approve financial statements issued by them. My question is, Mr. Chairman, that if there is a subsidiary that's indirectly owned by the board, first of all, are these statements going to be consolidated even if they're indirectly owned, and if not, on what basis does the board control indirectly owned subsidiaries?

The Chairman: We'll invite our witnesses to answer that question.

Mr. John Williams: That's just my first question.

The Chairman: Well, I think we're going to end there, John. The question has been called, and we allowed you that one extra there.

Are there any takers?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: If you look at clause 35, it does say—

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, one moment, please.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Sorry. It's on page 17.

Mr. John Williams: Is it clause 35?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Yes, and it's on page 17.

Mr. John Williams: Yes.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: It says:

The Board shall, in respect of itself and each of its subsidiaries, cause

Then there's a listing of what must be included in the financial statements of the board.

Mr. John Williams: Yes. But my point, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: John—

Mr. John Williams: What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: John, you're going back at it, so we're—

Mr. John Williams: No. I'm asking for further clarification, Mr. Chairman, because—

The Chairman: John, I'm calling you out of order. The question has been called. I granted some degree of leniency to allow you one last short question. You're just pushing the envelope there.

The question has been called, so I'm asking—

Mr. John Williams: Let me register my profound disappointment that my ability to ask questions is being severely limited and eliminated.

The Chairman: Okay, it's now on the record.

Shall clauses 2 to 8 inclusive carry?

Mr. John Williams: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have a recorded vote on that.

The Chairman: We're going to have a recorded vote on that. Then we'll get to your amendment, John.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, you denied me the right to make an amendment to delete the clause regarding the head office.

The Chairman: John, you're now getting into the area of disruption.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm entitled to debate the clauses.

The Chairman: John, the question has been called, and we're going to have a recorded vote.

(Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 9—Appointment of directors)

The Chairman: Now we'll give the stage back to you, John, for an appropriate amount of time. We're on clause 9. You have Reform amendment 1. John, I presume you'd like to say something about that.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you. I'm still incensed, Mr. Chair—

The Chairman: You look it.

Mr. John Williams: —by the fact that my right to speak has been denied. We recognize that closure was introduced in the House after four hours of debate. I did not have the answers to my questions.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. We're now discussing procedural matters, and we've moved on to debate on a particular clause.

Mr. John Williams: I'm entitled to discuss procedural matters, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: John, we're on clause 9 and Reform amendment 1. I'd ask you to move and speak to that amendment, please.

• 1155

Mr. John Williams: Much to my disappointment, Mr. Chairman, but because I respect your authority, I will move to the amendment of clause 9.

An hon. member: As long as he uses his time for debate and not for nonsensical—

Mr. John Williams: There is no limit on my time, Mr. Chairman. Can you tell me where I'm limited on my time?

The Chairman: It certainly is at the discretion of the chair to allow a reasonable amount of time for debate on clauses. I will seek some degree of leniency from my colleagues before I call the question. After an appropriate amount of time, I'll use my best judgment to wind up the discussion and call the question.

I invite you to start your comments on the amendment, please, John.

Mr. John Williams: Okay, Mr. Chairman.

I move that Bill C-78 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 6 with the following:

tion of the Minister, to hold office during pleasure for the term, not exceeding three

That changes “good behaviour” to “pleasure”, Mr. Chairman. It's not often that I argue for pleasure instead of good behaviour. But I think back to—

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have a point of order. I don't find it on lines 12 and 13. Maybe it's on line 17.

The Chairman: It's on page 6.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes. Maybe it's on line 17 in English and line 16 in French.

The Chairman: In English it's lines 12 and 13—

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I may not have been looking at the correct line. Could you give me the last version?

[English]

The Chairman: John, back to you.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I refer to the case of Mr. Weatherill, the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board who was appointed for good behaviour, and we all know how difficult it was to remove him even after the Auditor General had tabled a report—

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have a point of order. I have the right bill, and it's not the right line.

The Chairman: Go to page 6. One moment, please, while we help Pierrette.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Is it on the same page?

[English]

I'm talking about the English version, la version anglaise. Do you find it on page 6? So I don't have the right one. Could you give me the right one?

The Chairman: Thank you, Pierrette.

John, you're coming to a point, I assume.

Mr. John Williams: Yes, I'm coming to a point, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen regarding Mr. Weatherill.

As I said, Mr. Weatherill was the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board, and we all remember that he had abused his expense account. The government had to ask the Auditor General to investigate and report to Parliament on that, and it was a rather damning indictment. At that point in time the government wanted to remove Mr. Weatherill from office. I quote here:

Mr. Weatherill is among the 850 appointees who serve “during good behaviour”... This designation ensures them the arm's-length protection and independence from political interference needed to do their jobs.

This protection, designed to ensure these appointees can't be turfed simply because the government disagrees with their decisions, also makes it difficult to discipline or fire them. It means the government must walk a fine line. Their jobs can't be so protected as to make them immune from discipline regardless of their conduct.

There's just one more sentence:

At the same time, many fear the government could use misconduct or bad behaviour as a back-door way to fire someone on a whim.

Now, we're talking here, Mr. Chairman, about people who are going to be handling $100 billion worth of assets when the thing is fully grown. We don't give them the authority to figure out where they want to go to work and where the head office will be, but we certainly give them a wide latitude over the investment policies and maximizing returns. We don't say to stay out of the futures market, and we don't say to stay out of this market. We give them virtually unfettered authority to go and invest this $100 billion. And based on our experience with Mr. Weatherill, good behaviour is going to make it difficult to rein in these people if they start losing pensioners' money.

• 1200

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that is why I moved for “pleasure” rather than “behaviour”.

The Chairman: Well, as always, you make your points well.

Mr. John Williams: Could we have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10—Nominating committee)

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I want a debate.

The Chairman: I now hear that you want a debate. So we'll hear from you, John.

Mr. John Williams: We've done clause 9. So are we on clause 10 alone?

The Chairman: We're on clause 10.

Mr. John Williams: By itself?

The Chairman: By itself.

Mr. John Williams: Okay.

The Chairman: This was to accommodate the Reform amendments 11 and 12.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It appears we're getting into very gratuitous discussion here. We have a very specific task at hand. It's to pass this bill, with or without amendments. I think the committee should stay very focused on that, and I would ask the chair, to prevent certain indulgences, if we could move on to the business of this committee, post haste.

Members should come prepared to speak very clearly and specifically on specific issues. Let's prevent the gratuitous discussion.

The Chairman: I'm not sure that's a point of order, but it's so noted.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): On that point of order—

The Chairman: It wasn't a point of order.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, on that point—

The Chairman: His wasn't a point of order, so we can't be debating something that is not a point of order.

Mr. John Duncan: But he was talking about the terms of reference of the committee. The terms of reference of the committee are not to pass a bill, amended or otherwise.

The Chairman: As the chair, I think it's appropriate to allow members some reasonable time to make a specific point, and we're just getting started, so we'll just see how it unfolds here.

John says he wants to say something about clause 10, and then we'll get on with the business of clause 10.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, we're talking here about the nominating committee to find board members, and I'm looking at subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i), I guess it is. It says:

(i) is not entitled to nor has been granted a pension benefit under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act,

(ii) is neither entitled to nor has been granted a superannuation or pension benefit of a prescribed kind that is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and is chargeable to a Superannuation Account or another account in the accounts of Canada or is payable out of a fund

• 1205

This basically says that anyone who has anything to do with a public service pension, as far as I understand it, cannot be nominated or even be a member of the nominating committee for this fund.

The Chairman: Should we put that question to the witnesses?

Mr. John Williams: Except, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the members of Parliament pension fund are eligible, and I was wanting to hear what the witnesses had to say about that.

The Chairman: Let's have our witnesses comment on that.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Paragraph 10(1)(a) is describing the appointment of an independent chairperson for the nominating committee, and as such, it excludes current or retired public servants or members of other federal sector pension plans. That would include as well members of Parliament, either current or retired. These exclusions are around the independent chairperson for the nominating committee.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to ask a point of clarification on paragraph 10(1)(b).

An hon. member: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So noted.

We'll just let John ask a quick question, and then we'll call the question.

Mr. John Duncan: The wording of paragraph 10(1)(b) indicates toward the end there:

one of whom must represent persons employed in the Public Service

But we previously disqualified them from being someone receiving a public service pension. So does that mean that these individuals in all likelihood would be future recipients of public service pensions? Obviously, by the language, we were trying to avoid a conflict of interest, but does this not amount to the same thing?

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Paragraph 10(1)(a) is appointing an independent chairperson. That has to be a person who isn't connected to any of the pension plans, either as an active employee or as a pensioner. Paragraphs 10(1)(b), (d) and (e) are providing for the appointment of representatives of the active participants under the three pension plans affected by this legislation, that is, the public service under (b), the military under (d), and the RCMP under (e). Paragraph 10(1)(c) is providing for the appointment of a person who is a recipient of a pension and therefore able to represent pensioner interests on the nominating committee.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you. I've heard a request that the question be called.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Is that a point of order, John?

Mr. John Williams: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Let me see if it's a point of order.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I raised one issue. In this part there are paragraphs 10(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) and subclauses 10(2), (3), (4), and (5), and I've only been able to speak to one point, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been able to raise other issues, and now you're again denying my right to speak to all the points. I'm not regurgitating the same point. There are other parts of clause 10 that need to be spoken to as well, Mr. Chairman, and you're again denying the right to speak to individual issues because of members calling for the question. I would like to know on what basis we can be prevented from raising individual issues. They are individual issues. We're not talking about debating one point ad nauseam, Mr. Chairman.

• 1210

The Chairman: I've heard a request that the question be called. I'm under some obligation to proceed to do that.

Shall clause 10 carry?

Mr. John Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This vote is being held over my objections. Please record that.

The Chairman: It's so noted.

Mr. John Williams: I'd like to have a recorded vote.

The Chairman: We'll have a recorded vote on clause 10.

(Clause 10 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Tony Ianno: May I make a motion, Mr. Chair? Is it possible to see if we can carry all the ones where there are no amendments? Then for the ones for which there are amendments and for those that Mr. Williams thinks are worthy of change, we would then have more time to debate. If it's just a matter of his understanding the bill, he should have read it and asked the questions at the time.

The Chairman: I think when we come to clusters of clauses, it is only fair to allow at least some time for some questions.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Chair, I want to know if the motion is in order. If the motion is in order—

The Chairman: The best I can do is go by past practice and my best knowledge of the rules. I don't think we can change a rule right here and now. I need the support of the committee as I interpret past practice and my knowledge of the rules. No, I don't think so, Tony.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Okay.

The Chairman: We'll do our best to give members an opportunity to say something on clustered clauses, and then get on the best we can.

Mr. Tony Ianno: How much time is required on that basis, especially when there are no amendments on those?

The Chairman: We'll just have to do our best with what's reasonable.

Mr. Tony Ianno: All right. Go ahead.

(On clause 11—Reappointment of directors)

The Chairman: There are two amendments to clause 11, I think. We'll deal with Reform amendment number 2, John or John.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, we move that Bill C-78 in clause 11 be amended by replacing line 12 on page 8 with the following—

The Chairman: It should be lines 6 and 7. Go back one. Are you on Reform amendment number 3 or 2? My Reform amendment number 2 says lines 6 and 7 on page 8.

Mr. John Williams: I move that Bill C-78 in clause 11 be amended by deleting lines 6 and 7 on page 8. That is subclause 11(2), which says:

The Governor in Council may remove a director for cause.

That, of course, Mr. Chairman, is in line with our previous motion that the director sit at the government's pleasure rather than on good behaviour. Therefore, we move that subclause be deleted.

Mr. John Duncan: The example given by my colleague earlier on a different amendment showed that it was a great embarrassment to the government that they could not remove Mr. Weatherill when they wanted to. I cannot understand why we would create further legislation—

An hon. member: I have a point of order. He's not on topic.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm talking to the amendment.

The Chairman: You're talking to the amendment. That's okay.

Mr. John Duncan: We're supposed to learn from our experiences. That's what makes for progressive legislation. It seems to me that here's a clear-cut example where the government has chosen not to pay attention to an amendment that would indeed improve this piece of legislation. I'm sure there's other parallel legislation of the same ilk.

• 1215

The Chairman: All in favour of Reform amendment number 2?

Mr. John Duncan: A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We now have the second amendment to clause 11.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-78 in clause 11 be amended by replacing line 12 on page 8 with the following:

pointed, but no longer than two months.

Mr. John Duncan: So how does the whole clause read?

Mr. John Williams: The whole clause reads that if no person is appointed to take office as a director on the expiry of the term—

An hon. member: Dispense.

Mr. John Williams: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about here is governance by omission if we do not put a time limit on how long a person may continue beyond the expiry of their appointment because no one has been appointed to take their place.

This is an important point, Mr. Chairman. These people are appointed for a specific term. I can understand that there may be a small delay in the bureaucracy and in the paperwork to get the replacement on board, and that's why we have this clause that they shall continue in office until a successor is appointed. But that's open and indefinite, Mr. Chairman, which is why we have said we accept the fact that they may have to go beyond their appointment time, but surely two months is sufficient time for the government or the nominating committee to find a replacement. If they can't find a replacement within two months, we wonder what on earth they're doing.

This is a serious amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that my colleagues around this table would take these points seriously.

Mr. Tony Ianno: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are his other amendments not serious?

Mr. John Williams: They're all serious, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's not a point of order, Tony.

Pierrette.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would like to know if Mr. Williams proposes a period of two months because this is what other legislation provides or is it simply because this is what he deems reasonable?

[English]

Mr. John Williams: Two months to me, Mr. Chairman, is a reasonable timeframe, but if the member feels a longer time, such as three or four months, is appropriate, I'm quite sure she could amend the motion, and I would accept that.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would move that we amend this motion in order to have a three-month period rather than two.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's call a few questions here.

We have a motion by Ms. Venne to amend Reform motion number 3 to “appointed, but not longer than three months”. All in favour of—

Mr. Tony Ianno: Mr. Chairman, can we put the two together?

The Chairman: All in favour of Ms. Venne's motion?

Mr. John Williams: A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)

• 1220

The Chairman: Now we're on Reform amendment 3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Mr. Tony Ianno: Would you call the question.

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chairman: We have a small group—clauses 12, 13, and 14.

An hon. member: Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry. We're on debate.

The Chairman: I included clause 14 and I shouldn't have. We'll allow a few moments of debate on 12 and 13.

A voice: Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, that point is right out of order.

The Chairman: I'm going to allow just a little bit, then we'll...

Mr. John Williams: You know, they're rather testy around the table this morning, Mr. Chairman. I would have thought that since there was very little time to debate in the House, we would have had more opportunity to debate in committee.

The Chairman: You're using your time.

Mr. John Williams: When I look at clauses 12 and 13, which deal with remuneration of directors and the resignations thereof, I see there is absolutely no control whatsoever by the government, the pensioners, or the employees in any way, shape, or form to regulate how much these people are being paid.

Mr. Chairman, we know some investment people today are getting paid multi-millions of dollars. Now, those aren't the directors, but we may find these directors feel that since the officers of the corporation they're running are going to get paid mega-salaries—hopefully by excellent performance on the fund, but not necessarily so—that they have to be compensated accordingly.

I would think, Mr. Chairman, that because we're dealing here with public funds, $100 billion that's being put up by the taxpayers, there should be some way we should be able to examine and find out what these people are being paid, rather than allowing them through their own bylaws to set their own salaries. It's worse than for a member of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, because at least ours are in the public domain. Theirs will not be in the public domain, and when it comes to accountability, we know very well that when things happen behind closed doors they tend to get carried away.

The Chairman: I've read the question called. I think, John, you've made your point.

Were you on this point of debate on this, Mr. Byrne?

Mr. Gerry Byrne: It's just a matter of procedure as to how we proceed from here. Can we call the question, then, and can I have just a very brief moment? Thank you.

The Chairman: Well, if it's a point of order—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: No, call the question, and I'll...

Mr. John Duncan: Just one second, Mr. Chair. I think John has brought up a very valid point. Could we get a comment from—

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chairman: We'll allow a short comment from the officials, and then we'll call the question.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Again, this is modelled on the CPP legislation. Basically, it's a fairly competitive field, and the board needs to be in a position to attract the best possible advisers and investment professionals to their staff.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, that was the very point that I argued, that there's a major difference between board members and investment advisers, and because investment advisers are paid large amounts—

• 1225

The Chairman: John, you have that on the record.

(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 14—Chairperson)

The Chairman: Now we'll go to clause 14. Have you referred to—

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chair, could I just have a quick word about procedure?

We're reviewing a number of clauses and sets that have no amendments suggested to be attached to them. Given the fact that there have been no amendments suggested, when you go through all the different clauses, we're going to be debating in the next few minutes and hours, potentially, a series of things for which no alternatives have been suggested by the opposition.

The only option we have as a committee, for those things for which no amendments have been suggested, is to completely delete the clauses. If we were to do that, in many instances it would put the bill out of order. In the cases where no amendments have been put forward, the debate really should be quite limited, in the sense that we had the chance to debate specific clauses in advance of coming to clause-by-clause analysis.

So, Mr. Chair, in your diligence of doing your duties as chair of this committee, I'd appreciate it if you would, in reference to the amount of time spent on debate, for sections of clauses or groups of clauses for which no amendments have been put forward—it's the question of this committee in those instances, in large respect—either adopt the clauses as is or delete them entirely. If we choose to delete the clauses it puts the entire bill out of order, and in that case the issue is over.

The Chairman: I think Gerry makes a fair point, but here's what I'll do. Along the lines of what I've said before—and maybe I've been a little too lenient—where we have clustered clauses, maybe we could allow a few minutes for bone fide questions within those clauses. If I hear the question called, then we'll proceed.

Mr. John Williams: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Is it a point of order, John?

Mr. John Williams: It is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When you make the statement that you have been too lenient in the past and you may be less lenient from this point forward, after listening to Mr. Byrne's contempt of the committee process where—

The Chairman: We're into debate, John.

Mr. John Williams: I will withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman.

I want to explain that committee—

The Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. John Williams: This is my point of order. Where the committee looks at each clause—this is why it's called clause-by-clause—it is not up to the opposition to put forth, in advance, amendments to each and every clause if we want to debate each and every clause. Every member around this table has an obligation to Parliament, their constituents, the retirees, the employees and so on to ensure this bill is the best bill we can provide, and all are in agreement.

Therefore, to say we should have read this in advance, in private, and not debate the clauses here is an affront to the democratic process.

The Chairman: Gerry and John, you make sense. That's why the sensible thing for me to do when we have clusters of clauses is to allow a few minutes for questions on particular items. We'll try to be reasonable with that.

Mr. John Williams: I would like to be able to talk about each point I want to raise, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We'll take that as it comes.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Point of order? Is it the same one or a different one? I think I've dealt with that one.

Mr. John Duncan: I guess it's a different one, then, because—

The Chairman: I don't know. You tell me. What is it?

Mr. John Duncan: I'm suggesting you cannot separate the bill into what's debatable and what's not, because every part of the bill affects every other part of the bill. For us to give short shrift to some clauses—

The Chairman: That's why I will try to balance the two points made by Gerry and John. I think they're both valid.

• 1230

Reform amendment 4 is an attempt to amend clause 14. Are you moving that amendment?

Mr. John Williams: I move that Bill C-78 in clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 38 to 40 on page 8 with the following:

office during pleasure.

We're back to cause, good behaviour and pleasure. I have talked before about Mr. Weatherill, the embarrassment he caused parliamentarians and the government, the money he wasted—taxpayers' money. The government had to allow him to continue on in office. He continued to go through his files to see if there was a nickel, a dime or a couple of bucks he hadn't claimed that he thought was legitimate.

That continued for months and months until the Auditor General was able to table his report in the House to give the government sufficient ammunition to turf the guy out the door, even though it was quite apparent from the information and the government's own investigations that he was quite unsuitable for the position and should be removed. By the time the process worked its way through, it cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars.

On behalf of Parliament, the Reform Party is saying surely we should think about the lessons we have learned, as my colleague Mr. Duncan has pointed out. We must think about this. Let's have some debate and then vote, rather than just shooting down whatever the Reform Party proposes as being a frivolous amendment. I think that is an abuse of the process.

The Chairman: Pierrette.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I just want to say to Mr. Williams that I do not agree with him on this idea of removable appointees. The Bloc Québécois fought against provisions of Bill C-42 that provided for a lot of appointments at pleasure. We called them "ejection seats". If we want to be consistent, we cannot support Mr. Williams' amendment. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Pierrette.

The points that have been made here have been made previously.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chairman: Now we'll go to clauses 15, 16 and 17. We'll allow a couple of minutes of questions on this.

Mr. John Williams: Looking at subclauses 15(1), 15(2) and 15(3), it says in subclause 15(2):

A director is not eligible to be appointed an officer of the Board.

It goes on in subclause 15(3) to say:

A person may may hold two or more offices of the Board.

That seems to me to be a complete and total contradiction, therefore I would like to have an explanation.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I'm not sure why it seems to be a contradiction. The directors are disqualified from appointment as officers of the board. On the other hand, another person could hold more than one office, but they couldn't be a director. They could be an officer.

• 1235

Mr. John Williams: This is a serious point. I'm trying to understand. Witnesses who are experts are having problems explaining it themselves, therefore I think we're entitled to... Mr. Chairman, I resent these kinds of comments.

The Chairman: Just keep the comments out.

Mr. John Williams: The witnesses themselves are having difficulty understanding and explaining, therefore I would like to understand it before we vote. Let's just go through this once more with the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Then we'll have the question.

Mr. John Williams: No, I want to fully understand what appears to be a contradiction. The witnesses themselves said it.

The Chairman: Let's have the witnesses attempt to answer that, then we'll have the question.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: They're two different things. A director, a member of the board of directors, may not be appointed to one of the officer positions of the board. Another person who is appointed to an officer position may hold more than one of those offices. Again, this is the CPP model.

Mr. John Williams: What's an officer of the board?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Well, I think—

Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand. You're asking me to vote on legislation that's important.

The Chairman: Ms. Hamilton, have you finished that comment?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I was going to invite Bryce Peacock to—

Mr. Bryce Peacock: You could be the chief executive officer and you could also be the—

A voice: Chairman of the board.

Mr. Bryce Peacock: You couldn't be the chairman of the board, but you could be the person responsible for the investments. They might be two different positions, but they might be filled at one time by one person, that's all.

Mr. John Williams: So would the chief executive officer be a member of the board?

Mr. Bryce Peacock: No.

(Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3;)

(On clause 18—Directors' and officers' insurance)

The Chairman: I refer you to Reform amendment 5.

Mr. John Williams: I will move it.

[Translation]

I move that Bill C-78, in clause 18, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 10 with the following:

18.(1) The Board shall purchase and

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)): Dispense.

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Question.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, debate.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Okay. Quickly please, Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: I find it rather unfortunate it's always quickly, quickly. There are two official languages—

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Roy Cullen): Mr. Williams, you have a chance to speak to your motion. Please do that, or we will proceed to the question.

Mr. John Williams: We're saying in clause 18, as it currently reads, the board may purchase—underline “may”—and maintain insurance and so on. If the board does not purchase directors' and officers' insurance and something goes wrong, the taxpayers will have to pay.

If we don't trust them to find out where their head office is, we would surely want them to buy insurance. I think we should tell them to buy insurance, which is why we are basically changing the word “may” to “shall”.

• 1240

(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 2)

(Clause 18 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): On a point on privilege—

The Chairman: I don't believe we can address points of privilege in committee.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I would like to make it. Everybody else is steaming off around here, so I'd like to make a point.

The Chairman: Is it a point of order?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Call it whatever you want.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's go.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I think what's going on here displays an absolute disregard for all the people who are working here and the people who are trying to give some serious attention to this bill. I am ashamed of this committee. I am believing at this moment that there's an absolute lack of dignity here. We're all getting very restless and very angry, and there is a whole audience—

The Chairman: No—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, this is serious.

The Chairman: This is not a point of order, though, Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, they are purposely stalling and we are reacting poorly. I want this thing to have a little more dignity, because there are a lot of people out there who take this bill very seriously and it's not being treated seriously here.

The Chairman: Okay, you're on the record. It's not a point of order.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You're the main culprit here—

An hon. member: You're gone too far, John.

The Chairman: Okay. Shall clauses 19 to 23 carry?

Mr. John Williams: No. Debate.

The Chairman: We'll have a couple of minutes of questions. John.

Mr. John Williams: You don't think we could have a 20-minute recess, by any chance, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: You should have some pizza, John.

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chairman: Okay, I've heard the question called. We'll have a couple minutes of questions—

Mr. John Williams: Okay, just a second. We're talking now clauses... Things are going so quickly, Mr. Chair, I have a hard time keeping up with where we are. We're on clauses 19 to 24?

The Chairman: Clauses 19 to 23.

An hon. member: If there's no discussion, let's vote.

The Chairman: I've heard the question called. If you have a valid—

An hon. member: There's no discussion.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Colleagues, colleagues, I ask for calm.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate a few things here.

The Chairman: Is this on clauses 19 to 23?

Mr. John Williams: It's on the fact that I am being railroaded to go so fast that I can't keep up with my paperwork, and therefore I—

The Chairman: Mr. Williams, I can keep up with the paperwork; I'm sure you're at least twice as intelligent as I am. So if you have a couple of brief points you want to make on clauses 19 to 23, I invite you to do so. The question has been called.

Some hon. members: Call the question.

The Chairman: Well, I've heard the question called.

Mr. John Williams: Okay, Mr. Chairman, we're talking here about conflicts of interest. Now, unfortunately, the conflict of interest code that applies to the cabinet ministers and so on is a confidential conflict of interest—

The Chairman: That's not relevant, John.

Mr. John Williams: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we can ensure that what actually details a conflict of interest can be made a public statement of ethics, so that we can tell exactly what is entitled to be classified as a conflict of interest. We find out, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, far too often after the fact that there has been a conflict of interest.

Remember, all this is going on in secret. The board meetings will be in private. Whatever is going on by these people, we will not be a party to it until later on, until we find out something has gone wrong, and then they're going to say, well, gee, I didn't know it was a conflict of interest, Mr. Chair. Then they're off the hook because of some arcane little point that says, well, gee, I didn't think it was a conflict of interest—

The Chairman: John, I think your point has been made. Having heard the question called, shall clauses—

Mr. John Williams: It's rather unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that they're not prepared to—

The Chairman: John. Order, order!

Shall clauses 19 to 23 carry?

Mr. John Williams: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

• 1245

(Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 24—By-laws)

The Chairman: Okay, we're now referring to Reform amendment 6. Are you going to move that motion, John?

Mr. John Williams: I will, Mr. Chairman.

I move that—

The Chairman: Why don't you dispense with reading? We all have copies of it, so you can get right to the point, if you'd like.

Mr. John Williams: Okay. Let me just find it, again, in the bill itself.

An hon. member: If you're looking—

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, you will have to give me a minute. I have been dealing with conflict of interest and umpteen other issues this morning—

Some hon. members: Call the question.

The Chairman: I've heard the question. We'll give him two minutes.

Mr. John Williams: —and you have to give me a minute to change direction from the last subject.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: When does his two minutes start?

Mr. John Williams: We're dealing here with the bylaws of the organization, Mr. Chairman, and we're trying to resolve the conflicts of interests in saying that respecting the procedures for the identification of real or potential conflicts, we want to be able to resolve these. That's what our motion C-1 is all about. We have a conflict of interest, and we want to ensure that we have procedures to resolve these conflicts of interest so that we can get these things out in the open. That's why we're asking for these procedures to bring it out into the public domain.

I think of Mr. Weatherill again, who was feathering his own nest courtesy of the taxpayer, and we didn't know about it until somebody blew the whistle years later, Mr. Chairman. We're trying to say that here is an opportunity to be open and transparent with the board, because we know that while they may be subject to a nominating committee, it's still the government who has the last say, and therefore we want to ensure openness and transparency. Hence the motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: You've made your points clearly and concisely, John.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

The Chairman: Shall clauses 25 to 34 carry?

Mr. John Williams: Debate.

The Chairman: Okay, we're going to have two minutes of debate.

Mr. John Williams: We're talking here about several pages of complex technical stuff, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the investment committee, bylaws, audit committee, and you're going to say two minutes of debate? It's absolutely incredible that you would think this committee would rush over such important things—$100 billion of investments. We're talking here about the role and the duties of the investment committee. We're talking here about the audit committee, Mr. Chair, and their duties and their responsibilities. We're talking about the most important and crucial aspects of a $100-billion investment fund. And the committee does not want to spend more than two minutes on the investment committee and its audit.

• 1250

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Some hon. members: —

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, we heard from the witnesses from the financial community, and if there was one thing they stressed, it was governance, that if there wasn't good and appropriate governance there would be problems. I would like to be able to take a significant amount of time, Mr. Chairman, to go through this line by line, because as parliamentarians, if we don't do our job today, we will have been totally remiss in our responsibilities in ensuring that the audit committee and the investment committee are set up properly, with good governance, to ensure that there's a guaranteed—

The Chairman: In my opinion, your point has been well made, as it was in previous clauses. So we're going to call the question on clauses 25 to 34.

Mr. John Williams: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Clauses 25 to 34 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(On clause 35—Books and systems)

The Chairman: Okay, I refer you to Reform motion 7, referring to clause 35. Are you moving that, John?

Mr. John Williams: I move that clause 35 be amended—

The Chairman: We'll dispense with the reading.

Mr. John Williams: Okay. Well, just let me find it here.

Some hon. members: Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: No, Mr. Chairman, debate.

The Chairman: I hear the question being called. We'll give you a couple of minutes and then we'll call the question. We have the question.

Mr. John Williams: Well, as I said, I'm just trying to get my pages turned from the last one. I'm trying to even find it on the page. Just one moment, please. No, I'm still on the wrong page.

Page 18, line 11, internal audit.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: —

The Chairman: Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Let me come over there.

Mr. John Williams: Now, what we're saying, Mr. Chairman, is the—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: —

Mr. John Williams: No, madam... I think perhaps we should maintain our conventions, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Do you think I can prevent her from sitting there?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It will be my pleasure, John. I will act as your little assistant and find the pages for you.

Mr. John Williams: You can only sit here if you vote in accordance with us.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Mr. John Williams: I think she's going to get me more confused than ever.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It's line 11, right here.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I think we're getting a little giddy here, with the heat in the room.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Here you go, right here.

Mr. John Williams: That's right, we're talking about internal audits, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Williams: Now, again I can't overstate—

The Chairman: I'd invite you to make your point.

Mr. John Williams: —that it's $100 billion. Again, I go back to the witnesses. What did they say? Good governance. How do you have good governance? By having the proper structures in place to ensure that nothing runs off. They pointed to Barings Bank—a billion dollars down the drain. The whole organization went down the drain, Mr. Chair. Why? Lack of good governance.

Here we're talking about their doing internal audits. Our amendment says let's do it every year.

I'd like to draw this to the attention of the committee. We heard from one of the witnesses that they imposed upon themselves a semi-annual external audit, because they had a huge amount of authority given to them by their client. They felt quite uncomfortable having that amount of authority, and they imposed upon themselves an external audit every six months to ensure that devaluations were appropriate, procedure was appropriate, and so on. All we're asking, Mr. Chairman, is once a year.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

We'll call the question on Reform amendment 7.

Mr. John Williams: Recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

• 1255

(Clause 35 agreed to: yeas 7, nays 3)

The Chairman: Now we'll discuss clauses 36 to 38.

You've got two minutes, John. The question is being called. Take two minutes. That counts chewing time. We'll allow you to chew. We don't want you to choke here. We don't want the Reform choking at our meetings.

Mr. John Williams: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Ms. Jennings is getting me more confused than ever.

We're dealing here with the auditor—this is the auditor's report and the audit. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out again the fact that good governance is absolutely crucial, and I would like to see that the auditor for this fund be the Auditor General of Canada, because he is someone for whom we have great respect. He is someone who audits the government's books, and because he has the capacity to audit very, very large organizations, such as the Government of Canada, which has $150 billion to $160 billion in expenditures every year—far too much, but nonetheless, that's another debate for another day—and here we have a $100-billion organization that requires the best we can provide as far as scrutiny—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Hear, hear!

Mr. John Williams: She agrees, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Now let's call the question.

The Chairman: You have 30 more seconds.

Mr. John Williams: I'm being interrupted here, Mr. Chair.

So that's my point, that we should have the Auditor General. Coming up later on, we have the special audits, and I would like, again, to speak to that in clause 43.

(Clauses 36 to 38 inclusive agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 39—Definition of “firm of accountants”)

The Chairman: We have delightful Reform motion 8.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move that our Reform motion 8 be adopted. And as you see, we're talking about the qualifications of the auditor. We're saying he should be a resident of Canada, not “ordinarily resident in Canada”. We don't want someone who is passing through this country to audit a $100-billion investment, Mr. Chair. I can't understand why the government would bring forth to Parliament legislation of this kind in a situation where good governance is absolutely critical.

The Chairman: That might be an appropriate time to ask our witnesses to comment on—

Mr. John Williams: Well, let's ask our witnesses. What about this “ordinarily resident” rather than “resident” in Canada?

The Chairman: Do we have a volunteer? Joan Arnold.

Ms. Joan Arnold (Director, Pension Legislation Development, Pensions Division, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): Again, these words mirror those in the CPP. I think it essentially means the same thing. Also, I think protection is there by virtue of the fact that one has to be a member in good standing of a provincial association of auditors.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Just a second.

Thank you, Ms. Arnold. I've heard the question be called.

Mr. John Williams: I would like to point out that being in the accounting profession myself, I know several people who have designations in this country, who hold membership in CICA and so on, who are not living or even working in this country but are here on occasion. Depending on how you define “ordinarily resident”—because they have been here for some time—maybe we do end up with people such as them auditing this $100-billion account, and that cannot be tolerated.

• 1300

The Chairman: You're point is well made, Mr. Williams.

(Motion negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 39 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Now we'll go to clauses 40 to 44.

Mr. John Williams: I want a debate.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll give you two minutes, John.

Mr. John Williams: Okay. Mr. Chair, we're talking here, and I mentioned it earlier, about the special audits and special examinations in clause 43, and the fact that the minister may consider it necessary. I'd like to talk again about the right to information, the fact that we need as taxpayers... The thing I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that all the money going into this fund is put up by the taxpayers initially—first, as salaries of the employees, who then contribute a portion of their salaries to the fund, plus the employer's portion, which is taxpayers' money again.

Mr. Roy Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, he's stating the obvious.

The Chairman: It's not a point of order.

Mr. John Williams: That's right, Mr. Chair. I keep being interrupted by people who feel that what the government wants the government shall have, and I'm not subscribing to that theory.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You forget, John, you have a government member here helping you go through that.

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. John Williams: Even though I have a government member acting as clerk for me and trying to keep me on the right track, I still have the right to make my points in debate.

Mr. Roy Cullen: What are they?

Mr. John Williams: I'm trying to say we have a right to information, Mr. Chair. We need to know. We need to have access to the decision-making.

As the RCMP—and our witnesses—pointed out, if it becomes well known that the fund has an investment in ABC company, and they're on strike, if the RCMP are supposed to handle the violence on the picket line and the strikers know the RCMP pension fund is a large owner of the company, there's a complete and total conflict of interest, Mr. Chairman. And that type of issue has to be addressed through the right to information. We need to know that the information is available and appropriate, and that the RCMP don't end up in a conflict of interest, as they very well could.

The Chairman: John, notwithstanding that your time is up, I'm not sure how relevant that was.

Mr. John Williams: It was totally relevant, Mr. Chairman.

(Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 45—Report)

The Chairman: I'll refer you to Reform motion 9. Will you move that amendment, John?

Mr. John Williams: Yes I'm moving that amendment, Mr. Chair, for our motion 9.

The Chairman: Shall I call the question?

Mr. John Williams: No. I want a debate, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We'll allow him a moment to—

Mr. John Williams: I have to change gears again, Mr. Chair, so you have to give me...

Here we are again saying that we want to ensure openness and transparency, and that this board, who are using taxpayers' money, investing taxpayers' money, and investing taxpayers' money at risk, shall know that their work is open and subject to scrutiny, not just by the board in secret, but anyone who wants to have access to that information shall have it available to them.

• 1305

Mr. Gordon Earle: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I'm sorry. Gordon, on a point of order.

Mr. Gordon Earle: In the event that this amendment goes through, I think there should be a correction on the spelling there.

The Chairman: That's not a point of order.

Mr. Gordon Earle: It's not a point of order.

The Chairman: It's a point of spelling.

Mr. Gordon Earle: It should be “entitled” instead of “intitled”.

The Chairman: Okay. That would be automatically corrected. But it's a good point. Thank you. Somebody can spell here.

John, do you want to wind that up?

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Because I have to switch gears all the time, I'm having a hard time just keeping exactly—

The Chairman: Just stay in reverse.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Williams: It is vitally important—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The lion has roared.

Mr. John Williams: —for the purposes of accountability, that there be openness and—

The Chairman: That was just a joke, John.

Mr. John Williams: I did not take it personally. I was not offended. I heard the laughter around the table, Mr. Chair, and while my ego may be fragile—

The Chairman: He is being a good sport.

Mr. Tony Ianno: He is being a good sport.

Mr. John Williams: —I didn't take it personally.

But I do want to say—and I want to get it on the record, as I have done numerous times—that as we go through clause-by-clause, this committee just tends to brush over everything. Each and every point I have raised—

Some hon. members: Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: —is a valid, important point. Years from now when it comes back and they point the finger and say “Why did this happen?” it will be because this committee just brushed over every clause.

The Chairman: Point taken.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

(Clause 45 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: Mr. Williams, you have a point of order.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have additional amendments. We had difficulty obtaining translations, but we now have them. I apologize for bringing them in at this late date, but I'm giving you advance notice because they deal with clauses 96, 95, 151 and 198. They are in both official languages.

The Chairman: It's an order to receive amendments at the meeting, so hand those to the legislative clerk.

(On clause 46—Who conducts examination)

The Chairman: I'm going to ask if clause 46 shall—

Mr. John Williams: No, Mr. Chairman, you're going to fast.

The Chairman: You only get a minute on this one.

Mr. John Williams: We're talking here about who conducts the examination, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to point out earlier that the Auditor General is perhaps the most competent office and person in the country to deal with value-for-money auditing. He has the expertise to deal with the examinations. We're not talking here about financial examinations; we're talking about the examinations of the board and its subsidiaries to determine if the systems and practices are valid and reasonable, and give us the assurance all is well in the policy arena.

I go back to the governance. The point was that our witnesses said governance is crucial. If we are not prepared to examine it and ensure that the governance we build into this organization is the best we can determine, we have failed in our responsibilities.

• 1310

That is why I would like to see the Auditor General of Canada be required to conduct these special examinations. I can't understand why no one would want to even second that idea.

The Chairman: Thank you.

(Clause 46 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

(On clause 47—Statements to go to ministers)

The Chairman: I refer you to Reform amendment 10.

Mr. John Williams: I move that Reform amendment 10 dealing with clause 47 be tabled.

The Chairman: We can dispense with the reading of it. Do you want to take a moment or two? We'll give him a couple of minutes.

Mr. John Williams: Again we're dealing with timeliness. We're dealing with statements that go out to the ministers. The board has the requirement to come up with quarterly statements.

We're saying in our motion they have 30 days to forward these to the minister. For quarterly statements that are unaudited, it's quite common practice for the private sector to get them out in 30 days or less. Here we have no requirement for them to get these statements to the ministers within any specific period of time.

Again I come back to governance. We shall and should have an obligation to impose upon the board certain responsibilities to ensure everything is done, reported and available to the public in a timely fashion. Otherwise, we have failed in our responsibilities.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I can't see why we wouldn't want to adopt our Reform motion 10.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

(Clause 47 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(Clauses 48 to 94 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 95)

The Chairman: We have Reform 13 in your second package—

Mr. John Williams: What about the clauses from 47 to whatever?

The Chairman: While you were over there, they were passed. We're now on your amendment, Reform 13.

Mr. John Williams: I have so much paper here, you'll have to give me time to find it.

Since this was brought in at a late date, I move that Bill C-78 in clause 95 be amended by replacing line 31 on page 75 with the following:

tion (10) shall be debited in equal annual instalments

The Chairman: We'll give you a moment just to speak to that. Do you want to speak to that, or do you want a recorded vote?

Mr. John Williams: Of course I want to speak to that. I also wanted to speak to clauses 48 to 94.

The Chairman: I'll add a few seconds on this one so you can do that.

• 1315

Mr. John Williams: The point we wanted to say is that there are two rules in favour of the government, and this is dealing with taking the surplus out of the plan. There's a $30-billion actuarial surplus in the plan at this point in time. It's an actuarial surplus, it's not an over-contribution by the employer or employee. It is strictly an assessment, an evaluation by the auditor. And because circumstances have changed, the amount of money required to be in the fund has changed.

The government wants to take that money out. We're saying it shall be removed in “equal” annual instalments, not just instalments over a period of, say, 15 years, because with $30 billion they could take out $29.9 billion in one year and a few bucks for the other 14 years. That is taking it out over fifteen years, but as you can see, if they were to take out the $29.9 billion in year one, can you imagine how that would be manipulation?

I wouldn't want to be a party to manipulation. So therefore, Mr. Chair, I feel that our motion is not only in order, but should be seriously considered by all around this table.

The Chairman: Okay. All in favour of Reform motion 13?

Mr. John Williams: A recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

(Clause 95 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

(On clause 96)

The Chairman: I refer you to Reform amendment 12.

Mr. John Williams: One moment, please, sir.

The Chairman: We'll give you your usual quota there, John.

Mr. John Williams: Just a second, Mr. Chairman. Here we are.

I move amendment R-12. The motion is, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-78, in clause 96, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 80 with the following:

45, is greater

We're talking here about the non-permitted surplus.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is not familiar with his own amendments.

The Chairman: You're rendering an opinion. I'll give him his minute.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm appalled that other members would take this position when I'm trying to move as fast as I can. As you can see, we're already on page 80 of the bill—

The Chairman: And I appreciate that.

Mr. John Williams: I have spoken on umpteen different issues this morning. To try to get my mind from one to the other... Therefore, I would expect that the clock will start from the time I started speaking on this.

The Chairman: I appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. John Williams: I'm just responding to his point, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Yes, I know.

Thank you, Roy.

Please, John.

Mr. John Williams: And the clock will start from the time I start speaking on the issue? Right?

The Chairman: Okay. Start.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

We're dealing here, Mr. Chair, with the non-permitted surplus and the actuarial evaluations and so on. What we're trying to make sure is that we eliminate the discretion of the minister to basically choose whatever valuation he wants and the one that makes his point most advantageous, so that if he wants to get more money out of the plan, he can just pick one of the numerous valuations he has, the one that's most favourable to his position.

That's no way to run a plan, Mr. Chairman. It's no way to instil confidence in the people who run this country on behalf of government. If they're going to have confidence in their employer, the last thing they would ever want to think is that the minister can play around with what they perceive to be their money.

The Chairman: Good point.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I could go on at length.

The Chairman: We know.

Mr. John Williams: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1)

• 1320

(Clause 96 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

The Chairman: Shall clauses 97 to 117 carry?

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think we have clause 95—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We did it, that was R-13.

The Chairman: The numbering was wrong on your list, we've corrected it for you.

I've heard clauses 97 to 117 have carried.

Mr. John Williams: No, I want a recorded vote.

(Clauses 97 to 117 agreed to: yeas 7, nays 3)

Mr. John Williams: I want a debate.

The Chairman: No, we just carried them.

(On clause 118)

The Chairman: We have a government amendment to clause 118—

Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, I'm confused; I do apologize but I am confused. We were just dealing with my amendment and the clause I think was 96—

The Chairman: Dealt with.

Mr. John Williams: —and we dealt with that and you're now trying to tell me—

The Chairman: We did.

Mr. John Williams: I know we dealt with that, we dealt with clause 96, so now we're dealing with 97—

The Chairman: Done, we just did it, we just voted on it. So now we're on clause 118.

Mr. John Williams: How did we get—

The Chairman: You called for a recorded vote.

Mr. John Williams: How did we get from 96 to 118?

The Chairman: I called clauses 97 to 117, and we had the usual yeas and nays; you called for a recorded vote, which I did.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, it has been a long morning and I would ask that you have a little bit more deference to the members to ensure that we have time to even turn the page.

The Chairman: So noted.

Mr. John Williams: So we're now where? Clause—

The Chairman: Clause 118.

Mr. John Williams: By itself?

The Chairman: And we have government amendment number one. Are you going to move that, Tony?

Mr. Tony Ianno: Yes, I move amendment G-1.

Mr. John Williams: Do I have a copy of that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, you do, it's G-1.

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's that bill C-78, in clause 118, be amended by replacing... Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I haven't even had time to read it yet.

Mr. Tony Ianno: The word change is in “is required by subsections 5(1) and”; it's just adding the word “and”.

The Chairman: Colleagues, just a moment here. Mr. Ianno has the floor.

Mr. Tony Ianno: So I read the motion. Isn't it on the table?

The Chairman: It's a housekeeping matter.

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's just a housekeeping matter.

Mr. John Williams: Let me think about it for a second, Mr. Chairman. I haven't even found exactly where it's at.

Mr. Tony Ianno: Page 99.

Mr. John Williams: Page 99 on line 20.

Mr. Tony Ianno: On line 20.

Mr. John Williams: Okay, and now what you have done is replaced line 20 with “is required by subsection 5(1) and” rather than “or”.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

The Chairman: Just a second. Gordon, do you have a question for Tony?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, are you taking out “or” in that line? Are you substituting “and” for “or” or are you leaving “or” in?

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's “(5)(1) and”.

Mr. Gordon Earle: But then there's an “or” that comes right after that. You must be taking the “or” out.

The Chairman: Yes, the “or” would be out; automatically the “or” would be out. Okay, I've heard that the question be called.

Mr. John Williams: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Maybe our witnesses can tell us what section 1.01 is. And I'd like to hear from whoever is moving the motion—Mr. Ianno, I presume—exactly what impact this will have on the plan if we change it from “or” to “and”. First I want to know what it is, and then I want to know what impact it will have.

The Chairman: I'll defer to the officials.

• 1325

Ms. Joan Arnold: This is essentially to make it consistent with PSSA. We don't like to have inconsistencies between our statutes. The word “and” was used in the PSSA, so we are using the word “and” here. It's an oversight.

The impact on the plan—I don't think there is one. What these subsections are about—these are the provisions under which contributors contribute to the plan. Subsection 5(1) is the one that takes us from January 1, 2000, to the end of December 2003, and subsection 5(1.01) is the one that's for 2004 and subsequent.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. John Williams: Just a second, Mr. Chairman. We've only heard the explanation, but we haven't had a chance to think about it. We just got this given to us.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have a right to think it through before I'm asked to express my opinion on it. Now, I just want a moment to think and maybe ask some more questions. Surely that lies within my democratic rights.

The Chairman: I've heard the question be called.

Mr. John Williams: I know you heard.

The Chairman: The officials did, I think, quite fairly answer your questions.

Mr. John Williams: They gave me an answer, but I have a 200-page bill in front of me. They came out with the fact that this is in agreement with another bill, but I don't have the information.

The Chairman: Excuse me, John. I've allowed you sufficient opportunity, in my view, to ask the question. The question has been answered. Having heard the question be called, I am calling the question on the government amendment to clause 118.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 118 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Shall clauses 119 to 150 carry? Okay, we'll give you your usual there, John.

Mr. John Williams: My usual, Mr. Chair? To cover off 30 pages of complex legislation, you're giving me two minutes?

Mr. Tony Ianno: You didn't put in any amendments.

Mr. John Williams: That's not the point, that we're putting forth amendments, Mr. Chair. It's the fact that we're supposed to debate the contents of each and every clause to ensure they merit the support of this institution. Now, if some people don't care to do that, I do, and as I have said many times this morning, I feel my rights are being trampled on, because I'm not even given the opportunity to talk about many of these clauses.

The Chairman: I have heard the question be called—

Mr. John Williams: We have to point out, Mr. Chair, that this 200-page bill of technical and complex legislation hasn't seen the light of day for more than two weeks. Here you're asking us to go through it clause by clause to determine the ramifications to the pensions of 700,000 Canadians, the people who run this country on behalf of government, and you want us to just slide right over as if it's all perfect and give it the rubber stamp. That, Mr. Chairman, is an affront to the responsibilities of people at this table.

Now, I think we should take it slowly, page by page, to give me an opportunity to think about the issues that are before us, and I would like your concurrence with that.

The Chairman: What I'll say is it's on the record that you've asked for that.

Mr. John Williams: Therefore, I don't have your concurrence.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. John Williams: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that is an affront to the whole institution. When we take a look at... here, for example, on page 103, “Recovery of amounts due”, and here of course we're talking about, it looks like, payments of pension benefits, and we haven't even had the opportunity to discuss survivor benefits and so on, Mr. Chair. I asked the committee that we hear from people such as Focus on the Family, and there are other organizations that may want to express an opinion on this issue, but the committee didn't even want to hear from them. They didn't want to hear from the witnesses, you don't want to go through it clause by clause, you just want to rubber-stamp the whole thing. I find it quite obnoxious, Mr. Chair, that this attitude prevails.

• 1330

Looking on to “return of contribution”, “Interest on return of contribution”—no debate whatsoever, Mr. Chair—“Benefits payable on retirement”... We have no idea, Mr. Chairman, whether this bill, which sets up a whole new pension plan starting next year, and the current pension plan is going to get wound down—is this going to be identical or better or worse than the benefits currently payable? Let's ask the witnesses, find out exactly what is being changed. Let's hear from them.

The Chairman: We've heard the question called, John. I think if you had a very specific question on a specific point in that group, I could see the witnesses being asked, but you've asked a very general question, so I'm going to call the question.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, my point is that in two minutes when I take a look at “Computation of length of service”... I could discuss that clause for half a day, so that we all could fully understand it and then agree with it; if we agree with it, we vote for it.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Williams: If we don't understand it, we shouldn't be voting.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Mr. John Williams: The time this legislation has been before us is no opportunity to sit down with these individuals—

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Williams: —to find out exactly—

The Chairman: Thank you very much, John. Thank you.

Shall clauses 119 to 150 carry?

Mr. John Williams: No. Recorded vote.

(Clauses 119 to 150 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 151)

The Chairman: I refer you to Reform amendment 14. We should be on amendment 14 and page 129. I take it you'll move that motion, John?

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-78, in clause 151, be amended by replacing line 42 on page 129 with the following:

“tion (10) shall be debited in equal annual instalments”

And I believe the emphasis is on the word “equal”, Mr. Chair. Debate?

The Chairman: Yes. We'll give you some time, John. Go ahead.

Mr. John Williams: Well, yes, I have to record my objection, Mr. Chair. The point is that, as I said earlier, we're giving the government, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, basically unfettered access at any time they want to the surpluses that they find in the pension fund. Now, as I said, the surplus is not an over-contribution. It is because of the changes in the actuarial assessments based on the change in inflation, the fact that we imposed a six-year wage freeze on the employees, and the fact that interest rate return on the bonds is still high compared to inflation today. So it is strictly a change in actuarial assessment that has created this recognition that there's a huge surplus in the plan. Now this gives the minister and the government unfettered access to it.

As I pointed out, using $30 billion, they could take $29.9 billion all in one year, say hallelujah, we've got all kinds of cash to spend, and have a few dollars clicking in over the next 14 years for a total of 15 years. We want to impose some transparency on the government. If they're going to take this money, which we disagree with, we are suggesting it be by equal annual instalments and not just over a period of 15 years and it's up to them to decide how much they're going to take out in any one year.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, that's why we moved this motion, because the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that if he calls for a new evaluation, a new actuarial assessment of the plan, he could have the numbers reflect something else, and away he goes. He's robbing the plan. What do you think this would do for the morale of the civil servants, when they turn around every year and they take a look at the public accounts of Canada and they see the government has taken a few more billions out of their plan? Can you imagine what that's going to do for morale?

• 1335

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 151 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 152)

The Chairman: I refer you to the second government amendment.

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's to replace line 2 on page 133 with the following: “Forces Pension Fund.”

Mr. John Williams: Can we ask the witnesses to tell us what happens when we delete “under subsection (3)”? You're deleting “under subsection (3)”, so I want to know what happens when we delete that portion of the bill.

The Chairman: Are there any takers among officials?

Ms. Joan Arnold: What happens when we delete that is that we make it right, because if we did not delete that, then we would not be putting into that fund all the amounts that should go in. Again, this was an oversight. If we delete these words, it will be consistent with the portion of this bill that deals with the public service plan. It was—I hate to say it—a mistake.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, my point is that we should scrutinize this entire bill carefully. Obviously the person who was drafting the bill thought the funds under proposed subsection 55.2(3) were important, and while you say it's to make them the same as something else, what kind of funds were applicable under proposed subsection 55.2(3)?

Ms. Joan Arnold: Under proposed subsection 55.2(3) are the amounts that the government is supposed to put into the fund, and if we put only those in, we wouldn't be putting in enough.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. John Williams: Just a second, Mr. Chair. It would read:

55.2(5) The amounts deposited in the Canadian Forces Pension Fund shall be transferred to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board...

So if I understand correctly, she is saying that only the moneys put in by the government will get transferred to the pension board, and therefore the contributions by the employees would be left in the forces pension fund. Am I right?

Ms. Joan Arnold: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: This is important. I thought the board was administering the funds in the plans. Now it seems to be that you're transferring the funds from the plans to the board.

The Chairman: Maybe Ms. Arnold can clarify it.

Ms. Joan Arnold: The funds have to be transferred to the board for investment, otherwise the board has no funds to invest.

The Chairman: John, I think Ms. Arnold has answered the question.

Mr. John Williams: I know it was an answer, Mr. Chairman, and I can understand that the board needs to have the money, but if we are going to transfer the money to the pension investment board, it doesn't say “in trust.” We're going to put it right into their pocket. It doesn't say they have to keep the funds of the Canadian Forces Pension Fund separate from other funds they are managing; it just says we're going to transfer it to them.

I would think the minimum we would want to have is “in trust”, because the board is investing these funds on behalf of the pension funds; they have an obligation to do that. It's not their money, the same way as—

The Chairman: John, your point is always well made.

Mr. John Williams: —the taxpayers' money doesn't belong to the government either.

The Chairman: Yes, Gordon.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Before you call the question, may I have a word on that clause?

The Chairman: Yes.

• 1340

Mr. Gordon Earle: I want to make sure I understand this too, because when I look at it the way it is now, it looks like what's happening under proposed subsection 55.2(3) is that money from Treasury Board is going into the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, and then in the next section, which we're now amending, it would look like that money goes in and then goes out again into the investment board. The way it stands now, it looks like it's just a pass-through, but with the amendment, it would look like any and all moneys in the forces pension fund are now going to be taken and put with the investment board. Is that correct?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Basically, the scheme is that the contributions are made to the pension fund, and the assets of the fund are transferred to the board for investment purposes. So that would be the employee contributions and the employer contributions. Then the board, under the earlier part of this bill, the pension investment board part, has its objectives and its mandate set out in that bill and invests in the best interests of the plan members and with a view to the maximum return.

The Chair: Is that okay, Gord?

Mr. Gordon Earle: Not quite. I'm a little bit slow on picking up on this. It's pretty complicated, and I want to make sure I understand it.

By deleting, then, “under subsection (3)”, what is that actually doing as opposed to leaving that in? When it's in there, it says under proposed subsection 55.2(3):

55.2(3) There shall be deposited into the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, in each fiscal year...

(a) an amount that is determined by the President of the Treasury Board...

When you take that out, what are you doing?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: If we left “under subsection (3)” there, the only funds that would be transferred to the investment board for the Canadian Forces Pension Fund would be the contributions that were deposited by the government, the employer contributions under proposed subsection 55.2(3). That inadvertently excluded moving the employee contributions as well to the investment board, and so we have to remove that reference so that all amounts deposited in the Canadian forces fund get transferred to the investment board.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I understand.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hamilton.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

The Chairman: John, make the point briefly, and then we'll call the question.

Mr. John Williams: This clause now says that all the money collected from the contributions from employees and the employer get transferred to the investment fund. Is that correct?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: It gets transferred to the investment board.

Mr. John Williams: That's right.

Starting at the year 2000 and soon thereafter, anyone who retires after the fund gets set up will have a little amount of money, a pension, paid from the new fund, and if all the funds have been transferred to the pension board, where is the fund going to get the funds to pay the pensions they're going to have to start paying soon after April 1?

The Chairman: Thank you, John. We'll get an answer to that, and then we'll proceed.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Elsewhere in the bill—

Mr. John Williams: Oh, elsewhere. Very good.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: No, we can give you the direct clause references—

Mr. John Williams: Please.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: —but basically the benefits that are payable to members of these pension plans are laid out in the pension plan.

Mr. John Williams: But where does the money come from?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: The money, the funds, the benefits, are charged against, in respect of service in the future, the pension funds. There will be a payment made from the pension funds, and the benefits in respect of past service will be charged against the superannuation accounts.

Mr. John Williams: But there's no money, Mr. Chair. It's all gone to the investment board.

The Chairman: I'm satisfied that your question has been answered.

An hon. member: Recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 152 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1345

The Chairman: Shall clauses 153 to 171 carry?

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): I have a point of order. On that last proceeding, I know you've gone by it here, but Ms. Arnold was looking for an answer there and I thought the question was rather interesting. Could she not have an opportunity to dig up that answer and report back? They were in earnest looking for an answer, and it was a good question.

An hon. member: It's a question of the bill.

The Chairman: If I understand you, Randy, they're trying to get references for John's question about where. So if you have some numbers, maybe—

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: They're on the same page, 133, and it's the next proposed subsection.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Hamilton.

Mr. Roy Cullen: On a point of order, Mr. Williams in his last question said this is a serious question. I would like to think that all his questions are serious questions.

The Chairman: That isn't a point of order, Roy, but I think you've made your point.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

The Chairman: Shall clauses 153 to 171 carry?

Mr. John Williams: I said no, recorded—no, debate, I mean. I'm sorry.

An hon. member: If it's carried, it's over.

Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. It's been a long day for me.

The Chairman: It's been a long day. We'll give you your time. Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Williams: Okay. Just a second. We're starting on page—

The Chairman: Clauses 153 to 171.

Mr. John Williams: Before we leave that previous clause and we're on to the next part of it, proposed subsection 55.2(6), while I agree with the witnesses who say that the money for benefits shall be paid out of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, proposed subsection 55.2(5) gives them the authority of the responsibility to transfer to the pension board but there's no authority in this proposed subsection 55.2(6) for them to transfer it back.

I would still debate seriously, Mr. Chairman, whether that is fully documented in law. But now we're moving to clauses what?

The Chairman: Clauses 153 to 171. Did you sneak in a comment on a different clause?

Mr. John Williams: Never. I would never do that, Mr. Chairman. From 55.3 to where?

The Chairman: I heard the question be called, so we'll give you—

Mr. John Williams: 55.3 to where?

The Chairman: Clauses 153 to 171.

Mr. John Williams: Clause 153? We were on page... we just dealt with clause—

The Chairman: Clause 152.

Mr. John Williams: You must have a different book, Mr. Chairman, because on page—

The Chairman: We have a different book, but I'm sure it's the same version.

Mr. John Williams: Because on page 133, which we just dealt with... no, we didn't, okay. Where are we? Clause 153 to where?

The Chairman: To 171.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, when I go through from clause 153 and go on, it drops back to 59.1. And so what do you mean by... Does that include 171?

The Chairman: Yes, clause 171.

Mr. John Williams: Okay. Now we're talking here, Mr. Chairman, about the Reserve Force Pension Plan, and you've heard about amounts to be deposited and you've heard what I've had to say.

Have you any idea, Mr. Chairman, about how badly the reserve force handles their payroll and their pension contributions? I have a constituent, Mr. Chairman, who we are currently asking—

An hon. member: All of us do.

The Chairman: Let him ask the question.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I have a constituent for whom we are currently waiting for the Department of National Defence to reconcile her paycheque, and because they're saying they can't, my initial observation of her pay stubs suggest that they just gave her $10,000 because they have no idea how much they owe her.

• 1350

Mr. Chair, she is not the only person in the reserves who finds they are paid some money months after they have worked. The law requires everybody else to get paid in two weeks, and here we have a whole section dealing with contributions by members, dealing with amounts to be deposited, recoveries of debit balances, and the reserves can't even tell how many people are entitled to be paid, far less figure out how much they're entitled to get in pension, or how much pension contributions they're supposed to make.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should look at these clauses in detail, and I have to... I can only assert, Mr. Chair, the seriousness of this, because I know of others in the reserves who have no concept of how their paycheques are arrived at, how their pension contributions are arrived at. And it goes on here. I see in clause 161, I believe, it talks about no reduction in benefits, and so on.

Mr. Chair, I think we require a detailed analysis here, and I can't imagine why you want to gloss over the whole section.

The Chairman: Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at proposed subsection 5(10) in clause 171; I think it's the last one. I wonder if staff could explain this clause that says, first of all, the days are prescribed in regulations. How often is that changed, and what is the minimum they use as far as the work day is concerned? It's part-time work. I'm wondering what the criteria are for that.

The Chairman: Joan.

Ms. Joan Arnold: This provision is to allow regulations to be made to set out how many hours of work, or how many days per year, will be treated for the purposes of part-time coverage under the RCMP pension plan.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, I realize that's less than one FTE, one full-time equivalent. So the regulations cover less than one FTE, is that what you're saying?

Ms. Joan Arnold: The regulations haven't been made as yet. This is a new provision.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, that's why I'm asking what will be the criteria for that? I know how regulations are made. I'm just asking, will the criteria be spelled out before this is enacted, or how are you going to deal with those people who already qualify?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I'm sorry, I still don't understand the question.

Mr. Randy White: You're enacting legislation that affects the pension plan today. But a part of the effect of the pension plan is less than one FTE, or one full-time equivalent, by virtue of this proposed subsection 5(10) in clause 171, is that not right? But it's going to be enacted through regulation.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Yes, basically this is allowing regulations to be made that will provide for coverage for persons in the RCMP on a part-time basis.

Mr. Randy White: That's right. So these people currently exist, and yet there are no rules for them. I've had a number of questions about this already. What are the rules applicable to these people, as opposed to the—

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: You mean what will be in the regulations?

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: I think the Solicitor General will be putting forward regulations, but it will be following a study of the needs of these employees and consultation with these employees around pension coverage as it affects part-time members. We do have coverage, for example, for public servants who are employed on a part-time basis, but this would allow the rules to be set for members of the RCMP—

Mr. Randy White: Auxiliary.

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: —who are employed on less than a full-time basis.

The Chairman: Randy, is that okay?

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Williams: Two things, Mr. Chair.

We heard from the RCMP witnesses that while they were told there would be negotiations, there were no negotiations, so I'm a little bit apprehensive when I hear that there will be more negotiations.

But the point I also want to make, or point out, is that while it says here “a member of the Force”, it goes on to talk about those working less than full days. There is a big difference, I understand from the testimony that we heard, between the civilian employees and the uniformed members of the force. Since there's a big difference there, how is this going to be handled? All we're saying is through consultations.

• 1355

Going back to the previous section, where it talks about contributions not being required, it seems to be a convoluted paragraph. Again, the witnesses pointed out to us that they have to make contributions based on their salary, they have to make contributions on their overtime, and if they are in an acting position and are getting more money because of that, they have to pay contributions based on that extra salary they're receiving. But their pension is based only on their salary and has nothing to do with the income they earned in overtime or with acting pay. Therefore, they felt they were being abused and that their payments to the plan far exceeded the returns they should be entitled to.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: On a point of order. I would like to know if, while I was absent, it was decided that we would be having this question period here. Was there an agreement to that effect? If such is the case, I wasn't aware of it.

[English]

The Chairman: There was no end time on the notice of meetings, so unless members say otherwise, we'll keep going.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: This is the way you go about things. Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get back to this—

The Chairman: Then I'm going to call the question, Randy, after that.

Mr. Randy White: That's fine. I'm not trying to hold you up here, I'm trying to get an answer.

This legislation is applicable to x number of employees, with the exception of those who are excluded in proposed subsection 5(10). That's the way I read this. I am trying to determine who is excluded, and I think what you're saying is that you don't know who's excluded yet until the regulations are developed. Is that the way to read proposed subsection 5(10)?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Yes. Once those regulations are developed, you'll know who is included by them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Randy. Thank you, Sharon.

Shall clauses 153 to 171 carry?

Mr. John Williams: No, no.

The Chairman: You're voting no.

Mr. John Williams: I'm voting no, and I'd like a recorded vote. And I do think that—

The Chairman: Is this a point of order, John?

Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we should be a lot more circumspect in dealing with the pension plans of our employees, rather than saying—

The Chairman: John, that really is a point of debate, not a point of order. But thank you for getting it on the record.

(Clauses 153 to 171 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 172)

The Chairman: On clause 172, I refer you to what I believe is another government housekeeping amendment.

Mr. Tony Ianno: The amendment is that Bill C-78, in clause 172, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 147—

The Chairman: We can dispense with that today, if you want.

Mr. Tony Ianno: We're adding the word “and” versus “or”.

Mr. John Williams: Just a second.

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's on page 147.

Mr. John Williams: I think the first thing we want is to hear the witness tell us what this means. We also want to hear what impact it will have.

The Chairman: Ms. Arnold.

Ms. Joan Arnold: This amendment is identical to the one that was proposed in clause 118, which was in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. This is in the RCMP Superannuation Act, again, as an oversight. We are substituting the word “and” for “or” so that all three statutes will be consistent. Again, it has to do with contributions under subsections 5(1) and 5(2).

The Chairman: We'll just take a moment, Pierrette.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Earlier, when the government moved amendments, Mr. Ianno told us that it was because he had listened to the opposition's complaints. However, I now realize that these are simply housekeeping amendments. Does he believe that the opposition always talks about housekeeping? That's what I am wondering.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not sure of that. I'll let you discuss that with Tony after the meeting.

• 1400

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Okay, thank you.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 172 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Okay, shall clauses—

Mr. John Williams: I think Mr. White has a point of order.

The Chairman: Oh, I beg your pardon. Sorry, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, are you going straight through with this? Are you not breaking for Question Period?

The Chairman: No. Unless the committee instructs me otherwise, I'm going to go right through.

Mr. John Williams: Well, Mr. Chair, perhaps I would move that we break for Question Period.

The Chairman: I'm not sure how we do this, but let's have a show of hands if you want to stay... and if you don't?

I'm not sure what happens. My guess is that if the opposition leaves, if there were a quorum we could continue, and if there wasn't we couldn't. So it's really in the opposition's hands at this point.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: So you don't have a quorum if we leave.

The Chairman: You have to do the arithmetic.

Mr. John Williams: How much is a quorum?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Nine.

The Chairman: Four.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Nine, including the chair. So if we leave and you don't have a quorum, you have to stop until you fill it.

The Chairman: Yes, but there's a chance we could get some members in during Question Period and deal with it. That's a chance you take. I'm just being honest with you.

So I think that's the answer to your question, Randy. Question Period isn't on yet anyway.

So let's get back to the business. Shall clauses 173 to 197 carry?

Mr. John Williams: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Clauses 173 to 197 inclusive agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 198)

The Chairman: I refer you to Reform motion 15.

Randy, could you move that one?

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, we're going to take a little break away from the table here, so you're going to have a quorum problem. If you could just bear with us a few minutes, we'll get a couple of things—

The Chairman: We can't vote on anything. I suppose we could stay here and chat.

• 1404

• 1424

The Chairman: Inasmuch as we didn't adjourn, we're just getting back to work after a little break, colleagues. We only have a few votes left. We're on Reform amendment 15, with reference to clause 198.

Mr. John Williams: Just a minute.

The Chairman: Okay.

An hon. member: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Williams: No. Mr. Chairman, I haven't even had time to move it yet.

The Chairman: As usual, we'll give him a couple of minutes.

An hon. member: A couple of minutes for what, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. John Williams: I have to get to the page. Did we move everything up to this point, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Indeed, we did.

An. hon. member: I know you're not here.

Mr. John Williams: I'm right here. I'm wide awake, and I'm trying to get the right page. Here we go, page 181.

• 1425

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-78 in clause 198 be amended by replacing line 4 on page 181. Just give me a minute. Oh, we're back to the equal annual instalments again, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: We've heard all the arguments.

The Chairman: Guys, just calm down, please.

Take your moment in the sun with that, John, please.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your keeping the government members in line, because they're getting quite obstreperous this afternoon. I think we have the right to speak to these amendments, even though they are repetitious. The bill itself is repetitious.

The Chairman: I do recognize that we've seen this before, so I'd like you to come to your point as quickly as you can.

Mr. John Williams: My point, Mr. Chair, is that the President of the Treasury Board has given himself the right to take any surplus he finds out of the pension plan and apply it to government debt or wherever he wants to apply it at his own discretion. I find that to be insulting to the taxpayers, the pensioners, and the contributors, and certainly to the democratic process. If someone is going to take $30 billion out of a pension plan, at least there should be some significant debate somewhere, and it certainly isn't happening around this table this afternoon.

While we've moved that it be done in equal annual instalments, Mr. Chair, you're lucky we didn't submit that it should be subject to legislative change, and therefore a full bill would go through Parliament before this type of thing could take place.

When someone's pension plan is being eroded and the assets are being taken away and the potential risk to the plan is obviously being increased, surely the pensioners have a right to have some debate on the issue. We've had a few witnesses, a couple of people representing retirees, and a couple of the unions. Umpteen unions never even had a voice here, Mr. Chair.

Therefore, as I said, we're only asking, on their behalf and on behalf of reasonableness, that we do it in equal annual instalments.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, John.

Mr. John Williams: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)

(Clause 198 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 199)

The Chairman: I refer you to the fourth and final amendment of the day, a government amendment to clause 199 on page 184.

Mr. Tony Ianno: I so move.

The Chairman: Tony or officials, do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Tony Ianno: No.

An hon. member: Call the question.

Mr. John Williams: I have just one point.

The Chairman: A question is being called. We'll allow a question.

Mr. John Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The last motion we dealt with was for clause—

The Chairman: It was for clause 198.

Mr. John Williams: So this is for clause 199.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: So it is the next clause. Okay. Is it on page 184?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: I have to find what they're proposing, Mr. Chair, before I even start to debate. We're talking about lines 5 and 6.

The Chairman: To the officials, is this a housekeeping amendment?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: Yes, it is. It's parallel to what was done—

The Chairman: Okay. John, in the vein that it's—

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chair, I'm entitled to understand the amendment. I see that they are deleting the words “under subsection (3)”. Now that I understand the amendment and now that I know what's going on, I would like to have the witnesses tell us what impact it has.

• 1430

The Chairman: Very briefly, could our officials answer that for us?

Ms. Sharon Hamilton: It's correcting the same situation as we corrected under the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, to ensure that all of the amounts deposited in the fund are transferred to the investment board for investment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hamilton.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Clause 199 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chairman: Shall clauses 200 to 231 carry?

We'll give you your few moments in the sun. I hear the calling of the question and we'll give John a few moments.

Mr. John Williams: Well, Mr. Chairman, a few moments in the sun—by the amount that we have accomplished here today I would have been far better in the real sun outside.

The Chairman: I wasn't suggesting you were in the dark.

Mr. John Williams: I wasn't suggesting I was in the dark at all, Mr. Chairman. I'm just saying that being out in the real sun might have accomplished more than we have accomplished here this afternoon, because while I have tried to debate each and every clause and each and every amendment intelligently and productively, I have had very little cooperation, as you are aware, from my colleagues around the table, and that should be—

Mr. Tony Ianno: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to do my thing.

Mr. Tony Ianno: I have a point of order. He said we haven't been giving him attention and time; we have.

The Chairman: That isn't a point of order, but I'm just watching the clock and giving him a few moments.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing here with such things as the “Public Pensions Reporting Act”, “Annual Report”, “Contributions for elective service”... We heard Mr. White's comments earlier that we're going to have regulations produced at some future date governing who is eligible and who is not going to be eligible to participate in these pension plans.

We can't tell, no one around this table can tell, who will be in and who will be out, because the regulations haven't even been written or even introduced or even contemplated at this point in time, Mr. Chair. And here we now have “Contributions for elective services”, going on through all these points, and you're giving me two minutes. Powers of the Treasury Board in addition to that and the Financial Administration Act are going to get even more.

I can't even begin to address these points in two minutes, Mr. Chair. Therefore, I will rest my case, recognizing, Mr. Chair, on the record that I find that I have been quite disappointed with the process today.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Pierrette, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You started up again without waiting for me, and I would like to know where we are at. I know that we are in a great hurry, but could you tell me where we're at.

[English]

The Chairman: Clauses 200 to 231.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: It was about time I got here. Thank you.

[English]

(Clauses 200 to 231 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chairman: You'll be pleased to know, or sad to know, that we're in the home stretch here.

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

• 1435

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Mr. John Williams: Recorded.

(Title agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

The Clerk of the Committee: The clerk has run out of voting sheets.

The Chairman: We're going to reuse the sheet here.

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think we should adjourn until the clerk gets some more voting sheets.

The Chairman: He's going to hold it up to the light and go from behind.

The Clerk: I found some.

(Bill C-78, as amended, agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill, with amendments, to the House?

Mr. John Williams: A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chairman: I will refer it to the House.

I want to thank all members and the clerk and the researcher for their support today. Have a safe weekend.

Pierrette.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: About the last question,

[English]

shall the committee order a reprint for use at the report stage—

The Chairman: The amendments were just housekeeping, so we don't reprint for that.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Very well. I simply wanted to tell you, for your information, that in French, it says "à l'étage du rapport". In English, there is no problem, but in French, "l'étage" means "the floor". Is this the report floor?

The Chairman: It should read "étape".

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, exactly. The next time, I would like to see the word "étape". Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you very much. We're adjourned.