Ken Epp

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech. I have a lot of sympathy for what she is saying. There are a certain number of people in our society who do not have big bank accounts and who simply need the basic banking services in order to cash a cheque. Sometimes it is a welfare cheque or payment for work. All they need is the ability to cash the cheque. I agree with her that it should be available.

However, to say that banks be forced to keep a whole branch open in order to provide that service is perhaps stretching it. For example, she said that banking services are a right. A lot of us think access to food is a right. We do not want to have our Canadian citizens starving to death.

Would we then pass a law that states that grocery stores must stay open in a community whether they continue to lose money year after year? If they lose money, where will the money come from? Eventually, they would not be able to pay their operating expenses and their employees. They would not be able to stay in business. Would she apply that same criterion to grocery stores as she would to banks?

I am sympathetic to what she is saying. However, I think there are entirely different ways of providing basic banking services than just forcing branches to remain open when they are experiencing a loss or perhaps are way under target in terms of what the profit in a branch should be.

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I think I can give a simple explanation to the member opposite about the apparent perception of us voting according to instructions. As a matter of fact, I have never ever voted the way I have been told. I have always been persuaded, and that is the way the House should be.

I think that the discrepancy between us apparently all voting together and the members over there voting is that we are all subject to collective fine minds and good wisdom. However, over there occasionally, that being lacking but still being a whipped vote, we get an unwise vote on that side and a good one on this side.

I could give many examples of different votes which were held in the previous two parliaments which were not good for this country. I think of only one, the Nisga'a agreement. I think of the vote on hepatitis C. Did I say only one? I mentioned two before I could stop my tongue.

The idea of votes and members of parliament representing their constituents here is absolutely critical. It just cannot be two or three people putting their heads together and every time without fail getting it perfect. So, why not listen to 301 members who are properly elected and who put forward amendments? Surely we would be able then to get better legislation for the Canadian people because we could improve it.

The mechanism now is that once it is brought in by the government, even in committee, amendments are denied. We bring amendments in here and they are denied. I have had members over there say to me that some of the amendments I put forward in committee were good amendments.

However, when I asked why they voted against it in committee, one of the Liberal members shrugged his shoulders and said that they really did not have a choice. There was a contradiction between what the member is saying and what I heard from another one of his colleagues. I would really like to know what it is, but clearly we do need to have the freedom as elected members to represent—

[Heating Fuel Rebate, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the administration of this energy rebate system is a total Liberal disaster. Most people paying the high bills are not getting the rebate and thousands who do not pay for energy are getting these cheques from the government.

Prisoners are getting the rebates. We have records of students on student visas who are getting energy rebates. Thousands of people who have never paid a heating bill in their life are getting the cheques but those who are paying the high bills are not.

Why does the government not simply administer this through the utility company billings so that the rebates are targeted to the people who are actually incurring the costs?

[Speech From The Throne, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the member's speech. I noticed that about 85% of his speech had to do with municipal government. Then, he talked peripherally about the values in the House.

He mentioned one thing that really intrigued me. When he talked about drinking water, he threw in the word ecodiversity. I was rather confused. My idea of drinking water is that there is not too much ecodiversity in it. I would rather it be pure water. He may want to check the record of what he said and maybe rethink his position on that.

I have one question for the member. We feel in the House that members of parliament are too marginalized. Does he have any comment on the government's very tepid statement in the throne speech on improving the way in which members of parliament can do their work? I would like his comment on that.

[Speech From The Throne, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the speeches we are hearing today, both from new members and members who are very well experienced in the House. The member from Surrey Central has been here three and a half years, since the Prime Minister called the election only three and a half years after the previous one.

One thing I would like him to comment on is the working of the House with respect to the representation by members of parliament of the wishes of their constituents.

It has impressed me that whenever the member stands to speak his opening sentence is always that he is proud or honoured to represent the people of Surrey Central. I am sure he has observed the way some members of parliament are not able to do that. Would he comment on the effectiveness of parliament on that topic?

[Employment Insurance Act, February 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I humbly request unanimous consent to ask the parliamentary secretary a few questions.

[Member For Elk Island, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the week leading up to the opening of parliament was a very emotional one for me.

First, the supreme court ruled to protect our children and grandchildren from pornographers. We hope now that the government will close the remaining loopholes.

Second, the court ruled that Robert Latimer's sentence for taking the life of his daughter be upheld.

It is now almost a year since my handicapped sister passed away. I restate again my profound and deep thanks to my parents for caring for her and protecting her for 55 years. What they did was immensely courageous and heroic. I thank my dear mom and dad.

I would also like to add my deepest thanks and express my appreciation for the staff at the many care centres across the country, including Maureen and her staff at my sister's care place in Saskatchewan. These people also are true heroes, working lovingly and unselfishly in their efforts to reduce and control pain and to provide a caring home life environment for their patients. I thank all of them.

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly impressed with the new member who has joined us in our party in parliament. He is clearly very articulate. He has well thought ideas and it is quite obvious he is very capable of expressing them.

I should like to ask him one question with respect to the farm crisis and the fact that in the throne speech there was nothing about the farm crisis. He made an allusion to the fact that there was lots of money for Bombardier but seemingly none for farmers.

What does he see as both the short term solution to the farming crisis? What should be done in terms of giving them a long term solution so that they can be viable and so that our agricultural community can grow, be strong, be reliable and actually form part of our national security as we go on in coming years?

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I too add my congratulations for your ascendancy to the big chair. I know that you will do a great job there.

I want to say to the hon. member who just spoke that it was a delight to hear from a member of parliament on the government side who actually has firsthand experience on the farm. I do not think that we as members of parliament should be restricted in giving our message to the government, depending on which party we are from, but it somehow gives added strength when a member from the government side can point out that there are some Liberals who actually understand the farm crisis.

In both the province and in my riding where I live there are many farmers who are in severe, immediate crisis. This is even more so in Saskatchewan and Manitoba than it is in Alberta. I have had quite a few discussions with these people.

Their long term solution is that they need to get enough income from the sale of their products so that their operating expenses can be met. That is the simple long term solution. However, there are farms that are going to be taken away immediately from families who have had them for 100 years in some cases.

As the member is probably aware, Alberta and Saskatchewan only became provinces in 1905. Some of those farms in my riding were occupied by members of the family even before Alberta became a province.

I talked to farmers who imminently are going to lose their farms to the banks. They are going to be out of business and out of the homes that they have occupied for many years.

I would like to ask the member. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a political component to everything we say here, just from a straight, practical point of view, what can be done immediately in order to save the distress that those families are going through at this time?

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

That is a shame.