Debates of May 13th, 1999

Newfoundland Act

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister that a constitutional amendment would be needed.

Even though Newfoundlanders make up a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian Armed Forces, our per capita share of defence spending is lower than the Canadian average. That means we receive less than our fair share of the economic benefits associated with the presence of military units in our province.

The Minister of National Defence talks about elimination. What about amalgamation? If the minister decides to amalgamate the forces, would he not agree that a constitutional amendment would be needed?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any constitutional amendments. The member is talking about a very hypothetical situation.

I think Newfoundlanders can be proud of what they contribute to the armed forces of the country. They contribute in great numbers to both the regulars and the reserves. They have a proud tradition and a proud history, both under Newfoundland prior to 1949 and since becoming a part of Confederation. I want to maintain that great pride they have and which we should all have in their contribution.

Foreign Affairs

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian defence and aerospace companies are very concerned about recent restrictions that have been placed on them by the United States government which could threaten as much as $5 billion of our exports.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs advise the House on the current status of this very serious issue and the prospects for an early resolution of the matter?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

On April 22 I raised the matter with Secretary of State Albright and we came to an agreement that there would be a 120-day period of review.

Since that time, we have consulted with Canadian industry to register their concerns. In fact, we have a team of officials in Washington today who are raising those concerns directly with their state department counterparts.

We have also agreed that we would look at a review of our own export permit regulations to ensure there is no diversion of sensitive technologies or transfers of technologies. I think that will satisfy, in large part, the American concern in this matter.

British Columbia

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history we learned the Government of Canada is prepared to violate the Constitution and expropriate British Columbia property at Nanoose Bay. The premier's office has advised me that the federal government has rejected all offers to settle this dispute.

I have to question the Prime Minister's judgment if he thinks this is the answer to his western alienation committee.

Instead of threatening B.C., will the minister sit down face to face with the premier of British Columbia and move to resolve this dispute through negotiation, not expropriation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have made every effort to bring about a negotiated settlement of this matter. We have been working on this for two years. We have been taking the case to the B.C. government saying, “We need this for national security”. This testing range has been in operation since 1965. It is vital that we continue to use that seabed.

We have not been able to come to a settlement with the B.C. government. We have been more than generous in attempting to come to a resolution. If we cannot get a resolution by the 11th hour and 59th minute, expropriation will then be necessary.

Bill C-77

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to franchising Via Rail lines, the policies of the Minister of Transport will eliminate the cross-subsidization of bus lines, which allows regions to have such services.

Since the people in the regions are likely not to have access to either trains or buses, is the Minister of Transport not contributing through his policies to emptying the regions?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the aim of this government is to improve the passenger rail system, especially in Quebec. The hon. member is mistaken. Our aim is to improve the situation.

The report by the Standing Committee on Transport contained recommendations in this regard. We accepted most of them and they were supported by all members, including the member opposite.

Kosovo

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, media reports indicate that the Yugoslav army may be withdrawing from Kosovo and there is concern that large movements of troops in convoy may attract bombing by NATO.

If the Yugoslav army is in fact leaving Kosovo, what is the government doing to ensure that these troops can withdraw without being bombed? I would also like to know what the government is currently doing to bring us closer to a diplomatic solution for peace?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, last week, along with the Russians and the other members of the group of seven, we put together a seven point peace proposal which included a commitment for the Yugoslav troops to withdraw. However, they had to have a verification of that withdrawal to make sure it was happening.

If there are unconfirmed reports we will certainly be glad to look at them. However, there is a whole package and part of that package has to make sure that the protection of the Kosovars, the refugees going back, is guaranteed. That is part of the package and it has to be looked at as a total package.

National Defence

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has just said that he could be re-roling units. That means amalgamation, therefore loss of units, loss of their history, and losses for communities across Canada.

Is the minister really serious about considering such a drastic move?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand what re-roling means. It does not necessarily mean amalgamation. It could mean that a unit that has been an infantry unit could become a unit doing another kind of function.

We have to look at what total functions we need to support the Canadian forces both in the regulars and in the reserves in terms of the operations we have today and in terms of our 1994 white paper on defence policy. Re-roling could mean that they could carry on in a different function in support of the total army concept.

Canadian Beef

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Canadian beef is recognized as top quality beef and enjoyed around the world. Canadians question, why will the Europeans not accept our beef?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the European Union continues to practise fearmongering and the spreading of misinformation about the quality of Canadian beef in order to go against the WTO ruling. It has been proven time and time again to the WTO by the World Health Organization, the European Union's own veterinarian and health committee, Codex Alimentarius and Health Canada that Canadian beef is safe.

We want access. If we do not get access, we want compensation. If we do not get that, we will retaliate.

Business Of The House

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government hon. House leader if he could provide the House with the batting order so that we will know what pitchers to put up.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which he put in baseball format.

This afternoon we will conclude the debate on report stage of Bill C-78, the pension legislation. That will result in a number of votes at 5.30 p.m., or thereabouts.

On Friday we shall consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the criminal records legislation, and second reading of Bill S-23, respecting the Carriage by Air Act.

I understand that there have also been negotiations today regarding the status of Bill C-64, with respect to travelling exhibitions, and there might be a disposition to deal with that bill without debate at third reading tomorrow.

Next week is a constituency week. We will return on May 25, given that May 24 is a holiday.

The hours that day will be those usually followed on a Monday. That is to say, the House will meet at 11 a.m. rather than 10 a.m., and the debate will be on third reading of Bill C-78, with the vote to take place at 6.30 p.m. that day.

On Wednesday, May 26 I hope to call the report stage of Bill C-67, the foreign bank bill. This will be followed by the report stage of Bill C-54, respecting electronic commerce, privacy and other such matters.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 3.

Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining for his remarks.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we were getting close to question period I was attempting to draw an analogy of this bill to a storefront. On the storefront it says “Men's clothing”, but there are side doors and back doors. The main business being done in that building is bootlegging. We will call this building the government building.

I want to show the House what has happened. I have received hundreds of petitions from my constituency concerning the term marriage and for every one of those petitions I have received this response from the government: “The term marriage in Canada is clear in law and is defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. That is what the government is saying at the front door. However, the bill we are discussing will change the meaning of marriage forever and ever.

The government goes on to say: “There is no need to either enact this definition in legislation or to amend any existing legislation”.

While the government makes that statement, while it appears to be maintaining the definition of marriage and while it appears to be saying that it will preserve it forever and ever, this bill will clearly destroy the meaning of the term marriage forever and ever.

This bill will go down as the bill which, when put on the storefront, says marriage, but through the back doors and the side doors it is anything but.

There are many questions that have to be answered. When this bill is proclaimed, think of the hundreds of thousands of people who will be able to claim spousal benefits from life insurance policies who are in a relationship which is not based on what we consider to be a marriage.

The government cannot even ask this question. What about CPP death benefits? To whom will they go? Anyone will be able to challenge the current existing laws relating to the Canada pension plan, and they will.

This is probably the most serious bill that has come before the House in years. It is the beginning of the destruction of what we have had in this country from the beginning of time. This bill will destroy our heritage. This bill will destroy the terminology of marriage. Make no mistake about it, this bill will destroy the very moral fibre of this country. This is not a laughing matter. The government is going to have to answer to Canada. Unfortunately, Canadians will not see the ill effects of this bill for a few years.

What is the government's definition of the relationship of what we call the new nature? What is the relationship? How does the government propose to ensure that only those individuals who are engaged in a relationship of a sexual nature will get the surviving benefit? The question has been asked, but it has not been answered. How will the individual prove that the relationship is indeed a true relationship? Who is going to prove that? Canadians need to be worried about this. It is not so much my concern, it is a concern for my grandchildren and for their children.

We have come through a great era in the building of this country. Men and women, marriages and families have built this country. The government has destroyed it through the back door.

On top of that, the government has moved closure on something that is held high and dear by Canadians. Shame on the government.

Why are pension benefits extended solely on sexual activities? No one on the other side will answer the question. Those members do not care. What the government puts on the front door is not what is going in the side door and it certainly is not what is coming out. Shame on the government.

Will we now have sex inspectors to verify activity? Just think of that. That will take place.

Hundreds of acts will be modified by this bill through the back door. The government may say that marriage will never be changed, but this bill will change it. The government knows that, so it brought in closure.

If a person is currently married but separated and living with somebody else, who is the survivor? That question has to be answered before we can proceed with this bill.

I beg the government to pull this bill before tonight. It is wrong for Canada. It is wrong for the people living in this century. It will certainly be wrong for Canadians in the future. This is a terrible piece of legislation. Canadians, I am afraid, will learn that only too late.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-78. I would like to focus, in particular, on the issue of the debt and talk about the financial implications of this bill.

In successive budgets the federal government has balanced the federal books and has made a commitment to bring down our national debt.

Bill C-78 represents another stepping stone toward that goal. Bill C-78 will allow the federal Treasury Board to deal with existing surplus in the superannuation accounts of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

Funds from these pension plans will be directed at paying down Canada's $583 billion debt. The pension plan now has a balance of $119 billion from years of contributions and interest payments. The federal governments actuaries, however, estimate that only $94 billion is needed to pay the pension benefits of all existing and retired public servants.

In the public accounts of 1996-97 the Auditor General of Canada pointed out that the accounting for employee pensions should be carefully re-examined and changed. This is exactly what Bill C-78 addresses.

Canada's current economic success is due to sound economic and fiscal policies and the hard work and sacrifice of Canadians. In just four years we have eliminated a budgetary deficit which stood at $42 billion in 1993-94. In fact our first surplus in 28 years of $3.5 billion was recorded in 1997-98 and went to pay down the debt.

In the last federal budget the government put forward its debt repayment plan to address our national debt. The government will continue to present two year fiscal plans based on prudent economic planning assumptions. The first fiscal plan will continue to include a contingency reserve as a buffer against unexpected financial pressures. The current plan contains a contingency reserve of $3 billion a year. When the contingency reserve is not needed, such as last year, it will go directly to paying down the public debt.

In addition to the federal budgets of the government, legislation such as Bill C-78 would go to bringing down our national debt further. I am surprised that the Reform Party does not support the bill. I would have thought that a party so ardent about pinching pennies would stand up against the chance to put a solid concrete contribution of $30 billion toward reducing our national debt. I would like to know where the consistency is in terms of its policies on this issue.

There is support for the bill. The Edmonton Journal wrote the following about Bill C-78:

—the government is looking for money to pay down Canada's gigantic national debt—a worthy cause, if ever there was one.

The Toronto Star wrote:

By claiming the surplus, Ottawa can thus produce a painless $30 billion reduction in its debt. With reduction in the debt, of course, goes a reduction in interest payments, leaving Ottawa more money to spend on other things.

The Montreal Gazette stated the federal approach to dealing with the pension surplus was not only sound fiscal management but also a perfectly defensible use of the pension surplus.

Malcolm Hamilton, a pension specialist at William M. Mercer, said that time was ripe for the government to privatize the pension fund. With the deficit under control, he said, the government no longer needed to borrow from the plan. Mr. Hamilton argued that the government had public opinion on its side to use the surplus to pay down the debt. Public servants pay high premiums for their pension, 7.5% of their salaries, but they also have one of the best pension plans in the country.

Even Mr. Rex Guy, national president of the Federal Superannuates National Association, stated:

Any surplus must be shared equitably by the employer (the taxpayers), employees, and pensioners. FSNA believes that forcing a decision at the Supreme Court level on “ownership” of the surplus would inevitably lead the discussion away from the question of fairness and equity. FSNA has consulted independent professional and legal experts in the pension field and has been advised that, on the basis of current legal jurisprudence, the employer can decide how to dispose of the surplus.

Mr. Guy as well as many others have raised concerns to the effect that Bill C-78 might lead to shortfalls in the pension plan. There are provisions in the bill to address these concerns.

Bill C-78 proposals will allow for the establishment of an appropriate reserve to smooth any adverse effects in future actuarial assumptions. This is the same amount that is currently provided under the Income Tax Act for other employers, up to 10% of the pension liabilities.

Further, the legislation does not require surpluses to be withdrawn all at once. Rather they can be debited over a period of up to 15 years.

The federal government has always been committed to the pension plan. The current superannuation account was established by law to assure the employees that the government recognized its obligation to pay their pensions. If any shortfall or deficit exists between the amounts in the pension account, the government must make additional contributions to cover that shortfall. It has done so on many occasions in the past. The government has always assumed 100% responsibility for any funding deficits, that is all the risk that arose in the federal public service pension plan.

On the question of whether the government is setting a dangerous precedent by taking the surplus and applying it, clearly there are few plans primarily in the public sector where both surpluses and deficits are shared by the employer and the employees. Entitlement to surpluses excluding withdrawals is actually based on specific provisions in the pension plan text. Again Bill C-78 is adding such a provision to the public sector plan.

Bill C-78 represents the government's commitment to putting our fiscal books in order while protecting the pension plan. It represents a strong commitment to taking Canada out of debt. By passing the bill we can take one more step toward a healthier fiscally sound future and, as the Toronto Star so rightly pointed out, reduce our debt and interest payments which in turn would allow us to focus on other Canadian priorities: health care funding, more money for children's benefits, for seniors programs, and for an overall better quality of life for all Canadians.

We are not taking money away from Canadians. We are actually judiciously addressing our financial and fiscal responsibilities. We are making sure that all those involved in the pension plan, both those who are currently working and those who are retired, will get every cent. As has been pointed out in the House, the plan is even being enhanced.

Again I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to consider this point very carefully when they vote later this evening.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if you came to visit my riding. Seeing all the regions and all the regional county municipalities is something you will never forget.

I am very pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 3. I remind the House that time allocation has been brought in with regard to this most important piece of legislation. This bill deals with the use of billions of dollars, and yet the federal government has decided to limit the debate.

It seems rather inappropriate that, while the federal government has moved time allocation, some members of the government majority would be using up the time we have left, even though the government felt it was not necessary to take all the time needed to analyze this bill. This situation is somewhat ironic, and I will come back to that at the end of my speech.

However, I think it is important to adopt the two amendments in the group we are now debating because it would at least improve the bill somewhat, without necessarily making it acceptable. There are many other amendments that would be essential, but at least these would be a significant improvement.

First, Motion No. 16 proposes that the contribution rates be set out in an act of parliament to ensure that the government cannot do whatever it wants in the future. When it changes the contribution rates, it will be required to introduce a bill in parliament to that effect.

Knowing what the federal government has done with the employment insurance fund, the rationale behind this amendment is easy to understand. Year after year, it receives about $19 billion in premiums and spends between $12 and $13 billion. This means that, each year, the federal government uses between $5 and $6 billion for purposes other than those provided for in the act, for example to pay off the debt or to finance other types of spending.

When people pay their employment insurance premiums, it is very clear that they want adequate protection. Right now, they have the worst of both worlds. They pay too much in premiums and they do not have adequate protection in case they become unemployed.

We do not want the same situation with regard to pension plans. The proposed amendment is aimed at making the government accountable to parliament for any changes it wants to make to contribution rates.

The other amendment, Motion No. 38, is designed to prevent the accumulation of very large surpluses so we do not end up in the kind of situation we are in today. When there is a large surplus in a pension plan, there are always two options: reducing or suspending contributions, or improving the plan.

Without this kind of safeguards, the federal government will have total discretion. It will be able to do whatever it wants with this money, and contributors will not have the impression of getting adequate benefits.

Between 1924 and 1998, federal contributions represented only some 48% of all contributions made over 74 years. People wanting sufficient control over their money put in 52%, the lion's share.

The federal government took this money. I think the arguments made by my colleague on the majority side are inadequate. It is not because the government has money available and the need to repay a debt that it is necessarily entitled to take this money from a fund.

It is taking money from the employment insurance and the pension funds. The funds were not collected for this purpose. The government must assume its responsibilities and ensure the solidity of the employment insurance plan so that it truly meets the objectives is was designed for. This goes as well for the pension funds. These are not cash cows. The intent of our amendment is to correct this situation.

We therefore have two amendments intended to improve the situation and to try to have sufficient minimum control over the surpluses. That does not mean that it will become acceptable form the entire bill. The government opposite was highly criticized. It manages in a very egotistical and personal fashion the funds that belong to all those who contribute to them.

It is also in the process of defining the ground rules for the future and, in this regard, I think it important that the bill be reviewed, that there be a series of amendments making it more acceptable and, ultimately, if ever the goal of legitimate use of contributors' funds is attained, the House could always debate whether the bill was acceptable or whether more changes were required.

The government's decision to impose a time limit on debate is ridiculous. These are decisions involving billions of dollars. Individual members are being denied an opportunity to speak. Moreover, majority members, who were told by the government that there would be time allocation, voted in favour.

This gives them the chance to take up the time of those who might have suggestions for improving the bill. The Liberal majority is contradicting itself. On the one hand, it voted to impose time allocation and, on the other, it is taking up debate time when it itself felt that the debate should be wrapped up as quickly as possible.

I think that the government should at least have had the decency not to have any speakers, given its desire to bring the debate to a speedy conclusion, and given that opposition members have a great many points to make.

The government's logic is questionable, particularly as they are a bit short on arguments. Clearly, this is a decision that was imposed by cabinet and that is based on the same logic as the EI decision.

They are trying to tap into as many sources of funds as possible, in order to amass as much money as possible, regardless of its source, regardless of the fact that it might belong to someone else, regardless of the fact that it belongs to the contributors into the employment insurance fund, the employers and employees, or, in the case of the public service pensions, the federal government employees who are seeing billions of dollars getting away from them and into the hands of the government, to be used for purposes other than the one for which they were intended.

This is a rather frustrating debate. It is also one that will surely lead people to pass judgement on this government. When they have to assess the government's track record in the next federal election, they will have to keep in mind that the government has decided to use the surplus in their pension funds for purposes other than those for which they contributed.

They will be able to send a message to the government, one that will be richly deserved. In the end, it would lead the government to show a greater sense of responsibility and to make sure that when it must provide sound management it does so with the money available and by monitoring spending, not by taking money elsewhere to make up for ineffective monitoring in its own jurisdictions.

For all these reasons, unless the two amendments in that group are adopted and substantive changes are made to the bill, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. We do hope, however, that the amendments in the group now under consideration will be approved by the majority. These two amendments would go a long way to making this bill more acceptable. I am asking the government majority to adot them.

In conclusion, I would like to get the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That all government members, since government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78, the public service pension plan act.

The hon. member for Oak Ridges talked about how the government had every angle covered when it wrote the bill and how nothing could ever go wrong. I point to the Canada pension plan and successive governments saying no problem, don't worry, be happy; nothing can go wrong with the Canada pension plan. Those were smooth assurances to soothe the fear of taxpayers, to soothe fears of actuaries and to convey hope.

Now we see the plan increasing the amount of pension contributions every year until it is up to almost 10%. That is hardly the kind of action which engenders a lot of confidence.

The Liberals have proudly characterized themselves as deficit slayers, but it takes real creativity to call themselves deficit slayers given the record of the Liberal government. In the context of this important debate on Bill C-78 it is time to set the record straight.

During the budget debates and in the many kind words the Liberals spoke about themselves thereafter, I happened to hear the Minister of Health on TV saying that two years from now we would have real money for health care in Canada. I wonder if anybody thought what two years from now would mean to the Liberal government. It means, of course, an election. It will need all kinds of money to put that health budget before Canadians.

We are not complaining about health spending. In fact we have called for increased spending, but to hold it off for two years so that it can raid this pension and end up with the money for it seems to be kind of cynical. If I am rather cynical about it, I think it is understandable.

Any deficit that the Liberals have eliminated has not been through genuine cost reduction but through direct tax increases on the backs of Canadians and the raiding of public funds. First the Liberals chose the Canada pension plan. It took a number of years to bring it practically to its knees. Goodness knows whether the planned increases in premiums will make enough of a difference.

Employment insurance premiums are held at far too high a level while people on employment insurance are struggling to make ends meet. This just does not seem to be the way a government that cares for its people, as the Liberal government says it does, does things. Now it is turning to the public service pension plan.

Despite all of this the debt is still far too high. Taxes are far too high. In light of this $30 billion take the finance minister still refuses to give Canadian taxpayers a tax break. All these raids on the backs of Canadians, combined with high marginal rates and bracket creep, give us the highest taxes of any country in the G-7.

What is next? The Liberals have established themselves as the most creative break and enter artists of our day. This audacious legislation is a good example. This is a break-in through the back door by way of legislation rather than through the front door by way of negotiation.

I want to talk about what the Liberals are proposing to do with the public service pension plan. In that regard Bill C-78 amounts to nothing more than another creative Liberal tax grab. They have been slowly liquidating the surplus in the pension plan over the past few years. That is just one of the ways they have been able to balance the books. It is not by cutting spending but by raiding surpluses and taxing Canadians higher and higher year after year.

Another claim the government makes is that it has been fiscally prudent, but the truth is that the finance minister is improving the health of the federal government's finances, among other things, by dipping into civil service pension piggybanks. Since 1996, I say rather cynically, $10.1 billion has been saved by not making interest payments on the actuarial surplus. On another point which has nothing to do with fiscal prudence the civil service is overlooked in the disposal of excess funds.

These types of actions by the Liberals are not only becoming more common but are more than ever being seen for what they are: morally reprehensible behaviour on the part of the Liberal government. Yet the government attempts to justify its actions in the name of deficit reduction. The great scandal in this regard is that it is not at all about deficit fighting, as the Liberals would have us believe. Rather, it is about their continuing quest for a stream of taxes on overburdened taxpayers.

Sadly taxpayers are the odd men out in this equation. Taxpayers own the surpluses in the public service pension plans. Taxpayers in the past have covered $13 billion worth of shortfalls in the public service pension plans. Taxpayers will be on the hook for future deficits. Therefore taxpayers must be protected.

The simple fact is that the surplus in the plan should be left alone. The Liberals should just take their hands off it. The government should not be using it for any other purpose than to ensure the plan remains solvent now and in the future. The bottom line is that any surplus in a pension plan should not be available to any employer, government or private. It should remain in the plan for the benefit of current and future retirees and act as a cushion against future deficits.

I will turn now to a discussion of some of the amendments dealing with the issue of conjugal relationships. These amendments are in response to lower court decisions which see certain benefits such as pension survivor benefits currently afforded to married and common law couples being extended to same sex relationships.

The central issue surrounds the definition of spouse. The government has rightly affirmed the traditional definitions of spouse and marriage. It is important that we begin with the proper definitions. According to the Oxford English Dictionary , a conjugal relationship is one of marriage or the relationship between husband and wife and conjugal rights are those rights, especially in reference to sexual relations, regarded as exercisable in law by each partner in a marriage.

Spouse and marriage have been given special status in Canadian law because of their distinctive characteristics and unique contribution to Canadian society. It is important therefore that the current definition of spouse be retained and that an appropriate range of benefits and obligations be afforded the marital relationship, really the marital home. However the criteria proposed in Bill C-78 for extended survivor benefits are unacceptably vague.

The bill defines a survivor as either one who is married to the contributor or one who can establish that he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor for at least one year immediately before the death of the contributor.

Conjugality is one of several criteria which establish that benefits and obligations for heterosexual conjugal relationships are among all forms of domestic partnerships unique in their capacity to procreate children. It is this kind of relationship that routinely involves the caring for and nurturing of children. As the House knows there is a cost incurred through child rearing. Benefits have been extended to the spousal relationship to enhance the stability of the family relationship, as well to recognize the long term commitment and interdependence of the relationship.

Within Bill C-78 is the intent to extend benefits to same sex couples. When considering benefits for domestic relationships other than a spousal relationship, is sexual activity an appropriate criterion on which to extend benefits? What about other long term relationships of financial or emotional interdependency which do not involve sexual activity?

The new definition in Bill C-78 could include roommates who are sexually intimate once in the course of a year long cohabitation, yet exclude an unmarried adult brother and sister or two adult sisters who have lived together in a household for many years and are dependent one on another.

If the federal government plans to extend benefits beyond spousal or marital relationships to other types of relationships, it should consider the original rationale for giving the benefit to determine the basis on which non-spousal relationships should qualify. Furthermore, broad public debate should take place first before changes are made in a piecemeal fashion, the way the Liberals are doing with the bill.

We see again the government blindly going ahead with a policy that is not only questionable but completely unjustified since no debate has yet taken place with respect to altering the definitions of spouse and marriage as they are held within the law.

Before the government expands or changes the definition of spouse or marriage there must first be a proper debate in parliament and among all Canadians on such an important issue. We know that a strong majority of Canadians uphold and affirm the traditional definition and concept of marriage. The government's attempt to define conjugal relationships and explain who constitutes a survivor is a mess and impossible to determine from the wording in the bill.

In closing I find it interesting that the Liberals have recently begun a survey to understand why there is such low morale in the public service and why in the west people feel alienated from them. They are schizophrenic. What the Liberals are doing in the bill is only typical behaviour for them and offers the answer to their own question. Is it any wonder Canadians are increasingly skeptical of the government?