Ken Epp

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rather enjoy listening to the member because he has a logical mind but sometimes he tends to distort things. It is just the way it comes out, but I thank him for his speech.

I would like to correct one misconception. It is in fact true that individuals in Alberta and British Columbia pay a premium to have access to the health care system. That is how those provinces happen to set it up.

I would like to inform the member and everyone else who heard him that people who do not have money do not go without health care in Alberta. As a matter of fact, there is a means tested system. If people do not have the means to pay the premium then they are exempted from paying it, which is the way it ought to be. I do not think the member raised a valid point.

I would like also to talk a bit about the health care system. I noticed that the member wears glasses. I am sure he has been to a dentist. It occurred to me that neither optometric services nor dental services are covered under the Canada Health Act and yet it seems that our Canadian population is well served by private enterprise in those areas. We also have general practitioners and hospitals and so on that are publicly funded. That seems to work reasonably well most of the time except when there are some severe glitches in the system as we have experienced in Canada in the last seven, eight or ten years.

It would be disingenuous of us to simply say that we will never discuss whether or not there is a role for private practitioners. I think there is. As I have already said, there are a number of different medical areas which are certainly essential. I would be really lost, literally, if I did not have my glasses and yet I do not expect anybody else to pay for them. We should have in place a system whereby those who do not have the means to pay should be able to get their glasses covered. I think they do through our social welfare system. We are not against that.

As far as health care is concerned, the member really does misrepresent our stand. We have always had, reflecting the wishes of Canadians as a grassroots party, the health care system as our highest priority. It has been a concentrated effort on the part of our, shall I call them our political adversaries, to try to distort our image on health care. I am getting very tired of it. I am one who fully supports an adequate health care system. I believe very strongly in and voted for our policy that says no Canadian shall be denied needed health care because of a lack of ability to pay. That is our policy.

I would like the member to stop his concentrated effort of distorting what we believe in so that his party can somehow come out as the defenders of health care when in fact it has been under their watch that health care has seemingly suffered so very much.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I usually let members misuse our name three times before I rise. It is now three times that this member has not called us by the proper name as ruled by the Speaker. It is Canadian Alliance. I would ask you to remind the hon. member of that.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is really an interesting debate. I do not think it was a year ago when we were pushing for tax cuts that the Prime Minister said publicly in the newspapers that he was not cutting taxes as that was not the Canadian way. Now all of a sudden the Liberals are bragging that apparently they think their tax cuts are bigger than ours. That is not true of course, but they are trying to spin it. What an amazing transformation.

On the member's question, first of all, on the reduction in taxes for those who are in the $30,000 bracket, which is not a rich bracket, our tax plan is going to give them some real relief because we are reducing the exemption. There is a big difference.

A $20,000 income being taxed at 16% is $3,200. At 17% there is the same amount of tax revenue from an income of $18,000. In other words, reducing the exemption by $1,176 gives an individual a 1% reduction. We are reducing the basic exemption by about twice that, by $2,500 approximately. As a result, even though the remaining part will be taxed at the end of our plan at 17% instead of 16%, it still means the taxpayer will be paying less tax because it is only 1% higher but it is on $2,500 less money. Under our plan the person pays no tax at all on that much more money.

It is a problem in communication and the Liberals are really good at that. People look at 16% and 17%. Somehow the Liberals are able to separate Canadians from their money so efficiently and make them feel good about it. In a way we have to admire that skill in communication. We have to admire that, but it is being dishonest to Canadian people.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time. The member can ask that in a question.

In conclusion, if there were an Alliance government, we would begin to relieve the tax burden of Canadians in a substantial way. It is a fact that reducing the tax rates for families who are poor provides much more money for them than do the grants and the administration costs and all of the other boondoggles that we get from a government that believes in taking money from taxpayers and then having the bureaucrats or politicians decide who gets it back.

I am very pleased to announce that when the Alliance forms the government, it will be the end of hotels being subsidized in Shawinigan.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will not use that term again.

The government took money it was not entitled to legislatively. The EI fund is specifically set up to look after people who are temporarily out of jobs. The government has rolled billions of dollars from that fund into the general revenues in the consolidated revenue fund.

Let me talk more about the debt. Under the present government the debt grew from $508 billion in the 1993 budget. Let us say $546 billion; we will concede that it was not responsible for the deficit in the first year. Now the debt is around $565 billion. The debt has grown and it has grown substantially under the present government. Yet the Liberals are spinning it in such a way that literally thousands of Canadians think that hey, the debt is gone. They keep talking about eliminating the deficit and they do not communicate clearly with Canadians that the deficit is simply the amount one borrows.

Instead of borrowing, we now have surpluses, that is true, but it is with no thanks to the government. It would have happened anyway. The fact of the matter is that our total debt, the amount against our national credit card, is considerably greater.

As hon. members know, I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. One of the courses I taught was the math of finance. I did a little calculation. Just using round numbers, with a debt of roughly $580 billion, which I admit is now a little less, in order to retire a mortgage of $580 billion in 25 years would require posting a surplus toward it of $50 billion a year for 25 years. Those people are doing that. We are paying $40 billion in interest thanks to this government, the one preceding it and the Liberals preceding it. We got that huge debt and now we are paying $40 billion a year in interest. The government is paying it with taxpayers' money and it is paying another $10 billion against the principal. Lo and behold, that adds up to $50 billion a year. At that rate we will be rid of our debt in 25 years.

That is great. As long as I can do anything about it, we will do everything we can to pressure the government into resisting the additional spending it is prone to do. The only thing not mini about the mini-budget is the new spending programs. Added up over the next five years the Liberals are looking at spending an additional $50 billion. A lot of it is for straight political purposes as we have seen particularly over the last year. It is totally atrocious.

I would also like to address the question of tax cuts. The finance minister loves to stand in his place and say they are not only going to do da-di-da, but they are reducing the tax rate to 16%, from 17% to 16%. It is a crime that the Liberals are taking any tax money at all from the people whom they are taxing. They suck $6 billion a year from families whose income is less than $20,000 a year. That is absolutely atrocious. The Liberals are crowing that they are not going to take 17% of our taxable income anymore, but they are now going to take 16%.

This is what those numbers mean. This is approximate; I did not do an actual tax return. I just did some rough calculations based on a family making $26,000, a mom and a dad and two kids. The Liberals tax them around $2,000; actually $2,147 is the number I got. If that is reduced to 16%, their tax is reduced by $126. This is a family that makes a scant $26,000, a mom and a dad trying to raise two kids, and the government is asking us to jump up and click our heels, which I find difficult to do for two reasons and members will them figure out. That family will keep $126, $10 a month, and the Liberals say that is great.

Under our tax plan the same family would get a tax cut of 100%. We would cut that family's taxes entirely. They would not be required to pay because they are poor.

Let us consider people with a little more. The Liberals are trying to spin it that all we want to do is give a tax break to the rich and not to the poor. They are the ones who are taxing the poor. We are the ones who are ready to relieve the poor of tax.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to persuade all those Liberals over there that what they are doing today with this so-called itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny mini-budget is totally inadequate.

Unfortunately I will not have a great deal of time because I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. Therefore in my limited time I will address just a few of the issues. First, I would like to talk about debt. If we wanted to congratulate the Liberals for anything, I guess we should congratulate them for their excellent ability to spin an itsy-bitsy thing into something big.

One of the things they are bragging about is their debt reduction. When the Liberals came into power in 1993 the total debt was $508 billion. Of course they had that record over $40 billion deficit which was left by the Conservatives. For about eight years the Liberals were riding on the fact that the Conservatives gave them that $40 billion deficit.

How much mileage have they spun out of the fact that the deficit is now gone? I am amazed they even attempt to take credit for it. The deficit would have been gone if they had done nothing, which I guess is pretty well what they did.

We have had a very strong economy with our neighbours to the south. We have had a very excellent balance of payments internationally. Consequently our economy has done very well. Lo and behold the deficit is gone.

That has been on the backs of the taxpayers. It has been on the backs of the employers and employees in the country from whom the government incorrectly, illegally, unlawfully has taken billions of dollars out of the EI fund. It has no justification legislatively to do that. In more gentler terms we would call it theft when one takes something from someone to which one is not entitled. I am not accusing any individual member of that. It is the whole government that has simply stolen money, the billions it is not entitled to, from employers and employees.

[Proportional Representation, October 17th, 2000]

The hon. member claims that his motion came before our book. I rather doubt that. This happened quite a while ago. This is very similar to policies to which I have aspired ever since I was first elected.

What is democracy? That really is the question here. To me democracy is that system whereby we reflect, in the rules of our country, the will of the majority of the people as much as possible. There are times when that is not possible. Sometimes the majority of people simply do not like something when in fact it is a necessity. However, in a true democracy, if we come up to those kinds of situations I believe we need to be able to persuade the Canadian people, based on sound argument, that the measure is supportable. I have observed in my short lifetime that in those countries where a majority of the governed do not support the decisions made by their government the society usually deteriorates. We see sometimes total chaos in those countries.

What do we have in Canada? Do we have democracy? As I said, I am proud to stand in the House of Commons as representative for the people of Elk Island. In my party, the one I very proudly belong to, I have a mandate to represent the people of my constituency, whereas the other parties by policy have to vote the way they are told by their party leadership. In our party the rule is that when a clear consensus can be found among the people of the riding it is the duty of the member of parliament to represent the wishes of those people.

Contrast that with other parties where individuals who act contrary to party wishes get kicked out. They need to be represented in a way that reflects the way in which they live and work together. We cannot just put a line down the middle of a community and expect them not to be insulted by that.

Another thing that comes to mind with respect to a democratic system is that we are so far from it. It is incredible the amount of power we have vested in one person, the Prime Minister of the country. Right at the grassroots level the Prime Minister, as the leader of the governing party, can actually choose candidates in different constituencies at election time.

It is not required that the candidate be the person chosen by the people in the constituency. We have a number of situations where people aspiring to run to become members of parliament have been rebuffed by the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. They have been told they cannot run even when they have won the majority of votes at their meeting. Instead, the party in power states what people it wants. In some cases an election is not even held. The candidate is simply appointed.

We experienced this in Canada just last week when the Prime Minister effectively chose the member of parliament for one of the ridings in Newfoundland. It basically gave the people there no choice at all. He has been appointed to the cabinet of Canada without even having won an electoral seat in this country. To me that is not democracy.

The Prime Minister who chooses the candidates in the ridings is also the one who controls the members of parliament and tells them how to vote during each vote held in this place, that is, with the exception of the odd private member's bill, where members express themselves individually.

The Prime Minister controls the Senate. He appoints the members of the Senate, especially when there is a change of party in power, after a short length of time. We have experienced this since 1993 when the Conservatives held the majority in the Senate and when it served a very useful function, frankly. From time to time the Senate maintained a bill was not good for Canada and sent it back with amendments. However, after a while senators retired or passed away. They were replaced with Liberal appointees or liberally appointed. They now do the bidding of the Prime Minister in the other House.

There is no democracy in that. The Prime Minister appoints the candidates, appoints the Senate, and controls how they vote in both Houses. One could say that is really more of a dictatorship than a democracy. We must add to that the ability of the Prime Minister to appoint judges and commissioners to all the different commissions in the government. It goes on and on. We do not really have representative democracy.

With respect to proportional representation, the specific motion before us today, there are different kinds of proportional representation. The model I like the best is the one in which each constituency has a first past the post candidate. To me it seems fair that the person who got more votes than anyone else, not the one who came second or third, should represent the people of that riding.

However, there is a better way to do even that. In votes we should seriously consider having people express themselves in a preferential ballot and have the votes counted by computer. The person who has the fewest votes on the first level of choice would drop off the ballot. Every ballot with that person as a first choice would then go to the second choice. The process would continue until the person had a majority of the people in the riding. In that way we would not have a situation where there is a minority member. Eventually he or she would have the majority of the votes based on the first, second, third or fourth choice.

The second model I like a great deal is the one in which we have the first past the post system, as now, but also members at large for perhaps each province. I do not think we would want to do this right across the country. It would cause a bit of a problem. However, in each province there could be a set-up in which each province has so many members of parliament elected from the constituencies plus so many at large. That number could be used in the proportional system to top up representation for each province. It would serve very well to balance out the powers.

Then the ultimate, and this was the argument from the Liberal side, was that we would have a minority government. A number of people have told me our best governments have been minority. In minority governments legislators have to actually engage in a fair amount of give and take, negotiating and accepting amendments to improve bills. We thus get better legislation. I think we would be much better served if governments had to do that negotiation on the bills and motions they brought forward.

[Proportional Representation, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House of Commons to speak on the issue of democracy.

I congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for bringing forward this initiative. Frankly I am surprised. He has been reading our book. Is that not incredible? If one looks at the 75 principles on which our party was founded and the principles that now give us direction on how to represent our constituents in this wonderful House of Commons, one will read, in item 74 of those 75 guiding principles, the following:

To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we will consider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic voting, and fixed election dates, and will submit such options to voters in a nationwide referendum.

The hon. member is really a closet Canadian Alliance member.

[Marine Liability Act, October 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rose on a point of order before before to correct the member on the name of the riding. I was wrong and I apologize. She was in fact correct. I am sorry.

[Marine Liability Act, October 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe the member for Calgary West has opened his mouth today in the House. I think the member has the wrong riding.