Ken Epp

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to this member. I do not speak his mother tongue, but I get the impression that his speeches are always very fluent and very well delivered, and of course our interpreters do a fine job as well

I, too, would like to ask him about the member's response to this question vis-à-vis the reverse onus. I am exasperated when I hear this member and other members in the House, members from the Liberals and sometimes also from the NDP, decrying this. Somehow they feel it is unfair to people because they are being called guilty instead of being called innocent until proven guilty.

Is it not true that if one has been charged and convicted of serious crimes such as aiming a gun at a person, pulling the trigger and missing, not once but twice or three times, it really has been the accused himself who has proven he is a dangerous offender? The bill the member is talking about merely proposed that at this stage this individual be declared what he has already proven himself to be, that is, a dangerous offender. The reverse onus actually is a way out, whereby this person gets yet another chance in which he can say, “I am not a dangerous offender and here is the proof”. It gives him that opportunity.

Do we not have, as a government and as the enforcers of the law in this country, the obligation to put away people who just cannot learn after one, after two and after three times?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you check the record you will find that the member just said directly that the Prime Minister was dishonest. That is unparliamentary. It is also despicable. I ask that you ask him to retract those words unequivocally.

[Volunteerism, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my riding will be the host of two very significant sport and cultural events this summer. These are always fun for the participants and spectators and offer the people in our community an opportunity to demonstrate their wonderful spirit of volunteerism.

First, we have the Seniors' Games in the City of Fort Saskatchewan from July 26 to 29. This is a time when people my age and older compete and show that they are superior in mind and body. There will be about 1,200 participants and we are all looking forward to this time of challenge for mind and muscle.

Then we have the Western Canada Summer Games in Strathcona county from August 3 to 11. This will involve over 2,300 athletes, coaches, officials and performers, plus about 3,000 volunteers.

I offer my congratulations and thanks to all the volunteers and their leaders, people like Margaret Marciak the team leader, because without them such events just could not happen.

I say way to go to Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague has ever been a teacher but I was for many years. One of the best skills one can use as a teacher is to promote the thinking of the students. What he has done, through his question, using the Socratic method, he has basically delivered for me the answer to it by giving all of those correct answers.

I am so proud and very pleased to be part of a party that has gained the trust of Canadians to the point where they asked us to form the government. I am very proud to be a part of group that is committed and dedicated to all of the things the member mentioned in sharp and abrupt contrast to the party opposite in the 13 years that it mismanaged the affairs of this country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, again, I look at the bigger picture.

First, I thank the member for acknowledging my being in another generation. I am rather proud of the fact that I am an old guy. I remember when I turned 50, I said to my dad, “Remember when I was a kid and you used to say, 'When will you grow up?'” At my 50th birthday I said to my dad, “Do not give up, Dad, I think soon now it is going to happen”. I am glad to be in the generation above.

When I was a youngster, it is true, most families had only one wage earner. That was true for about 50% of the people in my generation. That is a reality and that is why it is so important for us in this budget to acknowledge that by offering an additional tax credit for children.

It is not dependent on how many wage earners there are. It is so important for us to lower taxes in general. One of the reasons both parents need to work is that they have such a huge tax bill. I am committed, and I have been since 1993, to working hard at reducing that total tax bill for families and for individuals. We should be working toward that. We need to do more and more on putting forward that part of our financial agenda.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member is on this theme all the time but he does not acknowledge that it is necessary to have tax fairness in our country, which is what our government's policies are all about. This includes the fact that big businesses need to pay their share of taxes so that the rest of us do not need to pay a whole bunch more. I think the member is sort of off track on this.

With respect to all of these wipeouts, I read recently that some of these income trusts are actually valued higher now than they were before October 31. Therefore, it is a myth when he says that this was all wiped out.

With respect to the income splitting, I think I used the words income splitting for pensioners. That was not 100% accurate and I acknowledge that he is right there. It is for pension income for pensioners. However, I would rather do something than nothing and the fact that our government is going forward in these measures is nothing but positive in my view.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House in order to support the bill before us today, Bill C-52.

As many members here know, I have for a long time been very interested in finances, particularly as they pertain to ordinary taxpayers, small businesses and families. This was one of the things that drew me into the parliamentary part of my life.

There are so many things in this bill that I could speak for probably several hours if the rules permitted, but I shall speak only for a short time. I would like to first of all mention my very enthusiastic support for the principle of income splitting for pensioners. This is long overdue.

Particularly in my generation, there were many families that had only a single income and that was our case as well. We made the choice that my wife, the mother of our children, would be a full time mom for our kids. I really value that. I think she probably contributed more to the well-being of our country by doing that than I did going to work every day, even though I may have gotten up at four o'clock in the morning.

I will also mention that we had perfect children. I do not know if other members did, but ours were. I know, for example, that right after they were born, I declared quite seriously that they never cried at night. They never once awakened me. My wife, on the other hand, I think may have some other stories to tell in that regard.

The bill, among other things, would allow income splitting for pensioners which would bring them into a lower tax rate. I think that is very important because most people who have made these choices also have half the income throughout their lifetime and half the pension when they retire. This is really part of the theme of tax fairness.

The other thing that is relevant here is the new tax credit of up to $2,000. Our government, this party and certainly I as an individual recognize not only the value of families raising children but also the tremendous expense that entails. Therefore, having a new tax credit of up to $2,000 is a tangible recognition of that. I applaud our finance minister and our government for introducing measures like that.

The other measure that I also support is making the equality of the spousal deduction equal to that of the single wage earner when there is but one wage earner in the home. It is another very pro-family measure that is being taken.

I do not want to sound in any way negative about this, but the money needed to support a person is really independent of whether or not the person works outside the home. In our experience, my wife actually spent as much money as I did and probably more because she managed our household expenses. As a matter of fact I used to say that we have specialization in our family. I earned the money and my wife spent it. The object of this was for me to be just a little better at my job than she was at hers. However, there definitely are expenses that are involved in the support of a spouse who is not working. To make that basic exemption equal is just a measure of fairness and I support that wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

Because I believe so strongly and firmly in the merits of the bill, I therefore move:

That this question be now put.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Exactly what you are doing now. Nobody believes you.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed listening to the member and actually as a person, I need to confess, I rather like him. He has a good friendly personality and I always appreciate that in a person.

I would like to point out, though, to all members of the House that, with all due respect, I think that all members, including those who fashioned the motion of the day, are just hoping that by saying it often enough they will turn Canadians against trusting us because they are claiming that we are breaking a promise when we are not. I am here pleading for a consideration of the truth.

I look at our budget document and I urge people to read it. It says explicitly that it is up to the provinces. I will read again what I read before:

To respect the Offshore Accords, Budget 2007 puts in place transitional provisions under which Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will continue to receive payments under that Equalization program. Both provinces will be able to permanently opt into the new Equalization program at any time.

It is also a fact that if they opted now to go to the new one, they would actually get more than under the old one, and that is the truth. I plead with members, let us deal in this chamber with the truth and not with some fabrication of it.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very clear in our Standing Orders that to use the terminology “deliberately mislead” is unparliamentary. I would ask that you have the member withdraw that statement, especially because what he is saying is not true.