Ken Epp

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Yes, blinking. I just called them blinking Liberals, that is all I said. There is nothing bad about that. It is as bad as I can get under the rules of the House.

We have all of those members standing up on command today, except for one, saying, “I do not want to disobey my party orders. I'll just vote for it”.

I have come to the conclusion that these members do that because their own pensions depend on this. Let us stop and think about this. If a member wants to be eligible for that gold-plated MP pension plan, which past Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties set up, voted for and accepted, the member must serve for six years. If members disobey party orders in their first term, the Prime Minister, in exercising discipline, could simply say that he will not sign their nomination forms. This basically means that they would not get re-elected. They could also put their own MP pension plan at risk if they disobey the party orders. Consequently, because we have a majority government, we have absolutely no way of stopping legislation which is clearly bad.

In this particular bill we have motions brought forward in part of the MP pension plan and other plans that say that the government will just simply take the money back.

I know why the Liberals want time allocation. I know why they want to jam this through by the end of the week. I know why they do not want anyone to talk about it too much. It is because of all the seniors who are affected, all the civil servants who are affected and all the taxpayers who are affected by this. None of them will have an opportunity to actually organize and get their opposition to the bill heard here before it is a fait accompli. That is absolutely shameful.

I am not surprised that the Liberals are doing it. I remember a bank robbery in Edmonton not long ago. They had a getaway car because when people take money that does not belong to them, they do not want to hang around too long. Obviously these guys want to grab the money and run, otherwise someone might catch on to it. It is absolutely ridiculous what the Liberals are doing. If I were a Liberal I would be hanging my head in shame at this stage.

We are debating the motions in Group No. 2. A lot of people do not realize that the motions in Group No. 2 are meant to sustain the current definition of family and marriage as it has long been held through centuries.

The Liberal government has presented a bill which takes away $30 billion from the people to whom it belongs and is also sneaking a revision into the bill of the definition of spouse. Instead of calling it a surviving spouse, the government has subtly changed it to survivor. The survivor of course is whoever one chooses, but the bill attempts to jam through that partners in a conjugal relationship can also be survivors.

How the dickens are the Liberals going to find out who is in a conjugal relationship? I will give members an example. It just so happens that my son, when he was at university for three years, shared housing costs with another young lad. They cared for each other and shared expenses, but I absolutely and positively assure members that there was no conjugal relationship.

What if one of them had died during the time when they were sharing this apartment? There could have been a benefit involved, but not in this particular case because this involves pensions. However, now that I think about it, I guess my son did have some credits under the Canada pension which this could apply to. He could say that they were in a conjugal relationship. How would anyone be able to prove otherwise? Will the Liberals stand on command next week if a motion is put to the House to install video cameras in everyone's bedroom so we can see if they are conjugating. This is so ridiculous and offensive. Furthermore, it is in opposition to what almost every MP in the House voted against.

In the six years since we have been here we have had a number of occasions when these exact questions on same sex benefits have been asked. I remember way back when one of the Bloc members had such a motion, 10 Liberals stood in favour of it while everyone else was either against it or absent. Only 10 Liberals voted for it. Why are they now for it? It is because their pension plan depends on them voting for this one. They are told how to vote and they simply comply.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here to finish my speech which I started the other day.

Of course, now the heat has been really turned up. What is happening is absolutely shameful. The government is ramming through legislation which does not bear the support of members of the public. It does not bear the support of the members most affected by this. The government is just shamefully using time allocation so that there will be no time for people to even talk about it.

Sure, we can talk about it here, but those blinking Liberals over there—

[Public Sector Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to begin my speech today and I suppose I will be able to continue it the next time we resume.

I certainly echo the sentiments that have been expressed by many members here today. It is regrettable that we do not have an opportunity both to debate the issues that are before us in the House, but also to enter into a full debate with Canadians across the country, the people in our ridings. We should be asking them how they feel about the pension plan, the allocation of the funds and the Liberal government.

Even though we know the funds are there as a joint venture of contributions by the members who are in the pension plan and by the taxpayer as their employer, it is regrettable that the government chooses to simply take all of the money and not give back a part of it.

I find it interesting, for example, that we had a bill not long ago sponsored by the Minister of Finance in which the question of pension fund surpluses for the private sector came up. In that legislation, an agreement had to be reached before the pension money could be divided up. Clearly neither side would get 100% in that because the other side would not agree to it. Why can we not have something like that here? It is because the government is so stubborn that it will not consider that we need to debate and amend the bill so that it is consistent with the wishes of Canadians.

Speaking of the wishes of Canadians, I want to get to the topic of this particular group. The amendments in Group No. 2 primarily have to do with the definition of the surviving spouse. This is being changed in all of the acts which are affected by the superannuation procedures of the employees of the government.

This change in the definition of spouse just sweeps across a whole bunch of different acts in a very pervasive way. I know there are some who will say that this is not what is being done here. They will say that they are not changing spouse, they are just adding a definition of a survivor to it. The fact of the matter is that it is effectively being changed. This is quite contrary to the wishes of Canadians. It is certainly contrary to the wishes of the people in my riding. It is contrary to the wishes of people in the House.

I remember shortly after the election in 1993 we had a debate in the House on a private members' motion. The motion dealt specifically with benefits for partners in a same sex relationship. The motion was soundly turned down.

Madam Speaker, I see you are giving me a signal because it is 5.30 p.m. I presume I will be able to finish my speech when this resumes.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this limited opportunity to debate a very important issue for Canadians. They should know the abuse of democracy in this place. I have always viewed democracy as being a very fine way of getting the consensus of the governed. If we do not have the consensus of the governed in a democracy then government falls apart.

Democracy is voluntary. Each of us voluntarily subjects ourselves to the authority of the government because in a true democracy the government is under authority to the people who elect it. That is being seriously eroded by the present government.

I am speaking to the fact that we are dealing today with a bill being rammed through parliament by a government that has gone totally crazy with power. Just because it has a majority it can do whatever it wants and its spineless backbenchers vote on command. I wish there were someone over there with some principles. They were several two parliaments ago when the GST was being rammed through, greatly against the wishes of the people. There were several members who had the personal strength to vote the way they believed peopled wanted despite what their government was telling them. That was democratic. I will not make any individual references, but I have high respect for people who do things such as that.

I would like to see some Liberal backbenchers finally get up in this place and say enough. This is not democracy. This is not the will of the people. This is not the wish of the people. This is a dictatorship. That is a strong word. I almost do not like to use it, but that is what it is. That is what is being done here. It is unconscionable. It is unfortunate.

We have many reports of people losing respect for government. This is one way respect could be restored. It is one way we could just back off and cool down the whole process. It is time for us to do what is right and to do it in the right way.

We are dealing with public service pensions. I will not use the strong words of some members to my political left and my physical right, but it is absolutely atrocious. I feel very strongly about it as well. It is unconscionable that the bill should be rammed through. I hate to use the word arrogance because when I use it, it makes me sound arrogant. However there is arrogance in a government which believes that it alone can come up with the best way of doing things and that it cannot be touched. That is wrong.

For many years I taught at a technical institute. For many of those years I was a supervisor and I learned that I could not make all the best or perfect decisions. I consulted those I supervised whom I considered my peers because many of them had as much experience as I had. Certainly most of them had as much wisdom and maybe even as much intelligence, although that would be debatable. We had many good discussions and debates.

There were many times as their supervisor, even though I thought we should go in a certain direction, that I was persuaded by the collective wisdom of the others to change direction. Sometimes it was dramatically; sometimes it was minor changes. That is an effective way of managing not only the affairs of a small math department in a technical institute but the affairs of government.

I cannot believe members on the other side are ready to invest in two or three people the autocratic right to dictate the way this should be and not to say that we think some of these amendments are fine.

We are at report stage on Bill C-78 which concerns the pensions of civil servants. It just happens there are many amendments. I know I cannot use props so I will resist the temptation to use a copy of the bill as a prop. Because of its weight it has sunk right to the bottom of the pile on my desk.

It is a large bill. It has 200 pages. Consequently it is possible that one or two of its clauses or phrases are not quite perfect. What is the role of parliamentarians? It is to listen to each other. That does not mean there is a line down the middle of the House with all the collective wisdom on that side and nothing but stupidity on this side. That cannot be. That is illogical.

Therefore we have put forward a number of amendments. My hon. colleague from St. Albert said in committee that he wanted to have debated some of these amendments and others that he put forward. Basically he was shut down by the committee. Government members were so intent on ramming it through that they would not even let him debate the issues in committee.

We are continuously told that the role of parliamentarians is in committee; that is where the real work takes place.

If there is no effective give and take, negotiation and agreement to make changes in committee, then it has to take place here. I know it is speculation at this stage but we expect the government to limit our ability to debate. A number of members have already said that. I regret this. This is a big bill with many clauses and amendments. This will probably be my last opportunity to speak on the subject. I do not think that ought to be so.

There are several groups of amendments. It is absolutely shameful for this government to even think of shutting down debate before members have been given an opportunity to express themselves on these amendments. It is even more shameful that even though we do that, the government on the other side and all of those wimpy backbenchers will probably—I will not presuppose—just fold and do as they are told.

When it comes to pensions it is important to consider some basic thoughts. There is an MP pension plan. I am very proud to be one of the Reformers who opted out of that pension plan because it is unconscionable. It exempts this group of Canadians, namely the 301 in this House of Commons, from parts of the Income Tax Act so they can have a very very rich pension which is primarily paid for by others. It is true that members who participate make some contribution but the rate of contribution of the employer, namely the taxpayers, is way out of proportion. Because I do not believe we should be a privileged group, I opted out of it at great expense. It is an example of other people being expected to provide for the pension benefits of a person when he or she retires.

It was the same thing with the Canada pension plan. Mathematicians and actuaries did calculations and the politicians of the day for political reasons did not act on those recommendations. They underfunded the thing and now we are facing a 70% increase in premiums in order to fix it because of political considerations.

Now there is this pension plan. The question very simply is who should pay for it? The principle we generally recognize as fair especially in government is that there be an equal payment. About 50% of the money to fund the pension should come from the employee and about 50% should come from the employer, 1:1. If we had an MP pension plan like that, I would probably be permitted by my constituents to participate in it.

The question with regard to this pension plan is whether the government has the right to take the $30 billion in surplus. Clearly the actuaries have made a mistake and there is an adjustment to be made. We need to make sure the mathematics is done correctly. They have overcharged. Whose money is it? In my view close to half belongs to the taxpayer or the government and half belongs to the employees who have contributed to it.

For the government to unilaterally take it away without giving them their share deserves a very strong word which I am not permitted to use. It has to do with taking things that do not belong to you.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, is the vote on the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's speech. He has a way of putting into simple words a very important concept and that is that Canadians are taxed to the hilt and they are sick and tired of it.

One thing that rather interested me was the way the government keeps doing its accounting and trying to communicate to Canadians that they are doing just fine and everything is tickety-boo, everything is clicking along whether it is or not, because the communications do not always agree with it.

I was quite surprised to hear the member from Port Moody—Coquitlam announce that the government has paid down $30 billion on the debt because I had not heard about that. It was news to me, but maybe I just have not picked up the newspaper today to read this announcement.

I made a phone call asking about this and apparently it is true. Can my colleague who just spoke comment on where he thinks this money came from? Does he know anything about this? How wonderful that the government is paying off the debt.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a little confused. I believe this was a speech and it was a very short speech, but I was getting ready to ask a question of him since I think he just made a speech and we should now be in questions and comments on his speech. Is that correct?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who is speaking to ask me an intelligent question and I will try to give him an answer.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I mean no offence, as I am sure the hon. member understands. However, I think that Canadian taxpayers have the right to know what is actually going on. The government's accounting methods are not correct. The auditor general has said so. We need to listen to what the auditor general says. It is his duty and it is the duty of all of us as parliamentarians to guard carefully the accounting and the expenditure of the money that Canadian taxpayers are forced to give to the government.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me carte blanche, does it not? What do I think of the way the government does accounting? I think it does not do it right. It is disobeying the rules.

In fact, the auditor general has said as much. It is not permitted under the rules to charge expenditures from one year's budget to different years' budgets. The government is doing this continuously. According to its numbers it has put $11.5 billion into health care. That is the number its spin doctors like to put out.

If we look at the details, we see this one time payment of $3.5 billion being available to the provinces any time they want it. When most ordinary thinking Canadians hear that they think it is $11.5 billion plus $3.5 billion because that is the way it is communicated.

It is not explicit so I checked it out. The accounting methods are totally unacceptable. In the 1999 budget the government charged $3.5 billion against the 1998 budget even though it was already past. That is not acceptable. It cannot backload expenses. No business can do it. The government should not be able to do it. Then it forward loaded expenses like the millennium fund, about which I have already spoken.

Just to finish off on health care, if we look at what the government has put into the budget it is $2 billion a year on health care. That means $2 billion this year and $2 billion next year. That adds up to $4 billion, but the way it is being done is that the $3.5 billion comes out of that. It is not an extra amount at all. I have checked this out because I did not understand it. At a committee meeting I explicitly asked the officials to explain this to me.

It is also clear after we read the documents for the fifth time. We can finally understand that this is what the government is really saying. There is zero more in the budget. Next year there will be half a billion dollars more for health care. After that the government is talking about $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion. Most of us would think that is an increase of $2.5 billion every year. Wrong. It is an increase of $2.5 billion from what it was before the first five year plan started.

The government is taking an amount and milking it for all it can. Everyone thinks it is a big amount because the government is announcing the same amount over and over, but it is actually one amount being announced five times. I think that is dishonest, if I dare say that. It is communicating to Canadian taxpayers, to the citizens of this country, our voters, the people who want to put their trust in this parliament—