 |
CorrespondenceBy fax - 990-2806 August 23, 1999
Dear Mrs. Robillard : Your letter of August 20, 1999 on public service pension reform will leave many plan members totally bewildered. If as both you and your predecessor have said, "joint management and risk sharing is the most desirable governance structure for public service pensions for the future", why did you not draft Bill C-78 to reflect your position? And why will you not now amend the Bill to reflect the agreement that was reached by the Consultative Committee? To argue at this late date, "that Bill C-78 must go ahead as currently drafted if discussions on a joint management framework are to have any chance of success in the future" is misleading at best. Since agreement has already been reached on a joint management framework including composition, mandate and process, all that is left to do is frame that agreement in legislative language. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, if Bill C-78 is to pass, and pass without amendment, any discussion that follows will be held in a climate where a Public Sector Pension Investment Board—inappropriately defined, established and operational under Bill C-78—will have had an opportunity to have done significant damage to the pension system and undermined any chance of future agreement on the issues of joint management and risk sharing. In short, adopting Bill C-78 as currently drafted is the wrong prescription, and one that may well undermine any chance of a reformed management structure that meets the needs of the government and plan members. I am sure that this is not the advice that you are getting from your officials, but as the Minister you surely have an obligation to get perspectives from beyond the bureaucracy on issues as important and contentious as those contained in Bill C-78. In my letters to you of August 3rd and your predecessor on July 30th, I requested a meeting on the pension issue "without precondition and with all parties free to put any of the issues addressed in the Senate Committee Report on the table for discussion and a hopeful resolution". Your August 20, 1999 letter to me would appear to indicate that you are not willing to meet prior to Bill C-78 being assented to. Since your office has already contacted mine with regard to a meeting on September 1, 1999, I assume that your reason for not proposing a specific meeting date in advance of the Senate’s scheduled return on September 7, 1999 is not a question of your availability, but a desire to have the surplus question disposed of by the passage of Bill C-78. I have always held the view, that while government has the power to legislate its position, that it should use the power judiciously and with discretion, and consult, negotiate and mediate in good faith instead. Turning this tradition and principle of good government on its head as you are doing is, in my view, an affront to any notion of good government at best, and to democracy itself at worse. I would hope that the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee will speak with one voice when you appear before them this evening, and urge you to meet with us prior to the Senate reconvening on September 7, and join me in suggesting that the discussion take place without precondition and with all issues addressed in the Senate Committee Report on the table for discussion and resolution. While I recognize that time is becoming increasingly short, the Senate will remain in session for some time following September 7, 1999 and before the scheduled return of the House of Commons on September 22, 1999. If you truly believe in pension reform that benefits all sides, you have the power to make it happen. Failure to meet, in good faith is, in my opinion, an abuse of power. Sincerely, Daryl T. Bean National President
233 Gilmour, Ottawa, Ont. K2P OP1 |