Ken Epp

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be able to rise to speak to a matter which is of the greatest importance to all of us.

I am sure that every member here, especially all those myriads of Liberals on the other side, represented mostly by their green suits today, would definitely agree that we want to protect the environment. We want to protect the people of our country from being poisoned. That really is what environmental protection is about. I do not think there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that basic fundamental principle.

If I may be so bold, Mr. Speaker, I would like to open my favourite magazine to the centrefold. It happens to be the blue book of the Reform Party. Right in the centre is our policy on pollution and the environment. I would encourage people to get a copy of this book.

I am holding it so the camera does not pick it up. It is not being used as a prop. It is not even as bad as a flag.

I would encourage people to pick this up because there is much misinformation about Reform's commitment to the preservation of the environment. The reason is that some people keep perpetrating the myth of what they think they would like to criticize us for, instead of looking at the facts. The facts are, what are the policies and principles—

[Division No. 541, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In anticipation of the pandemonium that will break out when the last vote is announced, I would like to say thank you for the wonderful way you have conducted the votes tonight.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the members of my Elk Island riding to rise once again to present a petition.

The petitioners are very concerned that families who decide that one of the parents will stay at home to raise their children instead of hiring someone else to do it should have tax discrimination. They are asking that this be rescinded.

This petition will add 87 signatures to the many hundreds I have already presented in this House.

[Petitions, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting is from petitioners mainly in my riding but also from Edmonton, a suburb of Sherwood Park.

Forty-one petitioners are asking for parliament to enact legislation to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

It is a very fine petition and I am proud to present it.

[Petitions, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition has to do with divorce and access to parents and grandparents.

The petitioners, mostly from my riding, are asking that the access be increased.

[Petitions, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, they just keep pouring in. I have another 60 names on a petition that says that the government should take action on providing fair tax benefits for families who chose to have one of the parents stay at home and raise their own children instead of having others raise them.

[The Family, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court M. v H. decision this week is another example of an unelected, unaccountable body redefining the family, the cornerstone of Canadian society.

The Liberals are totally abdicating their responsibility. Why do they not engage in a debate in the House and with the Canadian people on this important issue?

The Reform Party stands alone in this place to defend the family. We stand alone in defending the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a women.

I long for the day when only elected, accountable representatives of the people can change the definition of the family. I long for the day when this totally unprincipled Liberal government is replaced by a governing party which will make these decisions by a free vote, reflecting the will of the people.

Canadians are sick and tired of judge-made law. They are sick and tired of this vapid, cowardly Liberal government.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we know this is a fixed benefit plan.

He says that we get up and regurgitate. The Liberals have said this in every speech they have handed out to their people. I want him to know that I very seldom use notes. When I get up to speak I make sure my outline is in here. I have never ever used a speech that someone else has written.

My real question is on the pension issue. There is a surplus. Quite clearly there is a $30 billion surplus. They have collected $30 billion more than they need, actuarially computed at the present time. It is true that the taxpayers put more money into that fund than was needed so the taxpayers should be entitled to have the money taken back and applied to the debt, no problem. When he says that Reform has a problem with that, he is wrong.

How about the contributions made by the employees? They have also been overcharged. Are they not entitled to at least a proportion, an actuarially computed proportion of that overpayment? The Liberals are failing to notice that they are overcharging them and they do not want to give the money back. There is a word for that which I cannot use.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to ask a question with respect to this bill. It is one that I just cannot seem to get an answer to.

A number of people are really concerned about this bill. Two very widely disparate issues are at stake here. One is the definition of survivor. The other issue is from those people who have paid into and are benefiting potentially from this pension plan. I would like to find out from anybody on the other side, including the member who just spoke, if their assurances that everything is fine are really genuine and to be believed, then why are so many people so deeply concerned about this?

Furthermore, if the Liberals' position is defensible, then why are they not willing to debate it at length? Why is there closure at every stage on a bill as important as this one? Clearly, if it is defensible, I would think they would want to have a longer time for debate so that the truth in the matter could come out and people could be persuaded that this is a good bill and deserves support. Instead, what we have is closure and those people who are already receiving pension benefits and those who are still paying into it are worried about their future do not have an opportunity to mobilize, to make their phone calls and get their faxes and letters sent here.

I would like to know how the member reconciles the difference. Why is it that if everything is okay, these people understand it is not okay? There is a botch-up here somewhere.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I was listening very carefully to what the member was saying. It is rather refreshing to hear a member from the government side put the issues fairly straightforward on the table. I wonder if the member has any idea how we can correct this abdication of responsibility by parliament?

We have had a number of occasions where private members' bills on this very issue have been brought forward. Private members' bills are by and large called free votes and in those occurrences members present have voted against them fairly reflecting the wishes of the Canadian public.

Four or five years ago there was a private member's bill on the issue of benefits for same sex couples. As I recall there were 18 Liberals out of 177 at that time who voted for the bill and the rest against it. That was democracy at work. That was parliament speaking on behalf of the Canadian population, on behalf of the voters, saying that it was not ready for this because it was contrary to what many members believed and what constituents were saying. It was just not going to do it. Members would vote against it or they would stay away.

We now have this closure situation and whipped votes. Democracy is really being brushed aside while a few people with an agenda seem to be getting their way.

I know I am putting the member on the spot but does he have any ideas on how we can improve how this place works and improve its democratic process?