Ken Epp

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarity's sake, did you read the motion to say the numbers 15 or the number? I heard only number and it is plural.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the member brought forth some very interesting things which are of great importance, I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent for five minutes to ask questions and make comments.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today representing not only the clear majority of the people in Elk Island but also certainly the majority of people across the country.

Why the government would proceed in the way it is doing with this bill is a mystery to me. I have said a number of times that in order for our country to be governed well, we have to maintain the consent of the governed. That is how a democracy works. Increasingly in this place because the government has a slim majority and because of the way our parliament misfunctions, it is able with a small minority of people to jam its view of things down the throats of everyone. That greatly increases the cynicism about government. It greatly increases the lack of respect for this place.

I have received a large number of communications on this bill, as I get on a number of different issues. I stand here to represent what by far the majority of people have said. I do not have the latest count but I think it was about 200 phone calls, faxes and e-mails that we have received. If that is a fair sample at all of the understanding and the desires of the people in my riding and other parts of Canada who communicated with me, it is rather overwhelming.

Of all those communications, I received one that said we should support Bill C-23. That was not from a person in my riding. Lo and behold I got a second one. It looked familiar so I checked and sure enough it was a fax version of the same communication I had received by e-mail from the same person. At this stage one person has communicated to me twice to say it is a matter of urgency, go for it.

Let us contrast that with things that are urgent to Canadian citizens, such as real tax breaks instead of just talking about them as the government does, real changes to the Young Offenders Act instead of just talking about them the way the government does, a real attack on the issue of child pornography instead of the total stated inaction of the government. It boggles the mind. No wonder people are becoming cynical about the federal government. It does not listen and it is time that it did.

We have a record in the House. Over 500,000 people have put their signatures on petitions begging, pleading and cajoling the government to do something about child pornography. What is the government's response? It cannot do anything about it, it just has to go along.

On the other hand when a small special interest group comes along and says it wants to expend millions of Canadian dollars in order to provide undefined benefits to people undefined, the government says it will ram it through parliament. It will make sure its MPs vote in favour of it on penalty of being disciplined if they refuse.

I will provide some history. I have had the privilege of being in this place for over six years. It has been a great privilege but it has also had its frustrations of course. About four years ago, as I recall, we debated exactly the same question. The only difference is that on that occasion it was a private member's bill.

One of the features of private members' bills is that generally they are free vote bills. On those bills members of parliament from all parties look at the issue, get a read from their constituents if it is a controversial item or one that has their interest, and they return to the House of Commons and in true democratic style they vote the way they are told by the people who elected them.

On that occasion because of my interest in the subject, I wrote down the vote results and put them into a computer file. Had I filed them in my regular paper system, I may never have found them but they were in my computer and I was able to do a search. I found the statistics from that particular vote.

It is very illustrative to see how far we have come on this issue in the last four years. One possibility is that we have made this dramatic change in the House and in our individual convictions on this question, or we have been whipped into shape. It is one or the other. I think it is the latter and it is shameful.

These were the numbers in the spring of 1996. There was a private member's bill by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on the question of permitting same sex benefits.

Remember that in the previous parliament there were 177 Liberals. There are about 20 fewer now and hopefully there will be at least 20 fewer next time around. I am hoping for 120 fewer. There may even be 150 fewer but whatever it is, this is what happened at that time. Out of 177 Liberal members how many voted in favour of same sex benefits, a bill very similar to the one we have here today? It will shock everyone to know that there were 18 who voted yes. There were 18 out of 177. Very close to 10% voted in favour of it at that time. About 40%, 70 in number, voted against it. That was on the Liberal side.

Equally illustrative is that 89 Liberals did not show up to vote. That also says something. If a person is not willing to stick his chin out and take a stand on an issue, I do not want to use any pejorative terms but I think it shows a weakness of character to simply say, “I am going to sit on the fence on this and I do not want anyone to criticize me for having voted yes or no on it, so I just will not show up”. That is what happened. Eighteen Liberals, 10%.

In the Reform Party at that time 11 members were absent. Again, if I am going to apply the same standard, perhaps some of them were not willing to vote on it. Because most of us are from the west it could also be assumed that a number of them were in travel status on the day of the vote. Almost 80% of Reform members present voted a firm no on that question because we were reading what the Canadian public wanted on this issue.

Of the nine members of the NDP, only two voted yes. That is 22%.

Of the Conservative Party, they were evenly split, all two of them, one on one side and one absent. With all respect the member for Saint John voted against that bill at that time.

How we have slipped. Things that were sort of accepted as not being acceptable are being jammed on us by, very frankly, a minority government. The Liberals had 38% of the vote which gave them a slim majority here in the House. Without any regard for the democratic process they have used closure and time allocation and have prevented Canadians from expressing themselves on it. They have prevented Canadians from having their say on this very important question. That is shameful. It is so sad that the government simply does not believe in representative democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a half an hour, but you have already signalled that my time is up. That is so regrettable because I would like to talk to many other issues. Perhaps I will get another opportunity when we come to the second group and I will certainly utilize it.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 120 with the following:

“254. (2) The definitions “joint and survivor”

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-23, in Clause 1.1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“the word “marriage” which, for the purpose of any federal law, means the lawful union of”

[Human Resources Development, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if a credit card is lost or stolen and it is reported to the bank, the bank cancels it within minutes and the money stops flowing. Yet, the Department of Human Resources Development continues to allow missing social insurance numbers to be used, costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars, even after searching for them for two years.

Why is it so easy for the minister to dole out the cash but so hard for her to account for it?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech because his words were very encouraging. He reminded all of us in the House of something in which I firmly believe, that the role of parliament is to limit the ability of the government to tax and to spend.

We all know the history. Originally it was the king and his horsemen around him who went around with a mace, the symbol of which we have here. If people did not pay their taxes, I guess they were clubbed on the head with the mace. We have that symbol of authority in the House. It used to be that the king taxed people too much. The people said that was the end of it and parliament came into being.

As a member of parliament I would like to ask the member a couple of questions in that regard. Has he ever voted against the current king's requisitions? I say that advisedly. The Prime Minister and the finance minister seem to come up with a budget. It seems the only member on the other side who has ever voted against a budget measure sits right now beside me over here. He was censured by the government for doing exactly that.

Has the member voted in favour of an amendment to reduce it? For example, in an previous budget the Reform Party at the time put forward some amendments to reduce some departmental budgets of billions of dollars by $10,000. At that time we made the point that it was symbolic, just to show that parliament had the final control on expenditures. Did he vote in favour of it? Does he represent his constituents as an MP when he supports by his votes the spending of money to make films like Bubbles Galore and to hang dead rabbits on fences?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

He is not going to be so fortunate as to get only that from me, Mr. Speaker. I gave the government a very mild applause for resisting the temptation of spending all the money when it came its way. I gave it credit. It is quite possible that during the Trudeau years governments would have done it differently.

The member expresses some terms in a pejorative way instead of debating what we are talking about. He said that they were here to protect families whereas we on this side of the House would tax them to death. That is not so. Our 17% flat tax would give most poor people a 100% tax break. That is what would happen.

The Liberals are quite content to take $6 billion a year in tax revenue from families whose income is $20,000 a year or less, and they call themselves a pro-family government. They are taxing them to death. They are killing them.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no and I will explain why. As I said before, if it were an investment then the person making the investment would have a choice and would be able to get a decent return on his or her money.

The member is asking the wrong person this question. The field of mathematics happens to be my profession. Just for the fun of it, I sometimes solve little math and finance problems just to keep my brain alert around this place when things get dull. I have done these computations.

A young person subscribing to the Canada pension plan can expect around a 2.9% return on his so-called investment. The difference between what that is and what he could get if he were to invest it almost anywhere else in the world is a tax. Quite clearly the premiums are simply making up for the government's total mismanagement. It is not listening to its actuaries and once again is making political decisions with taxpayer dollars. It has done that consistently and it is wrong. I stand by what I say and I will discuss that subject with the member any time he wants.

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

I am not really happy to be here today. Today is March 29. It is the birthday of my son, who is in Calgary. It is birthday of my grandson, who is in Regina. Very frankly, I would much rather be with my family today than to have to endure the lack of respect that we get from members on the other side.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak about the budget and the impact it will have on us and on our country in the future. I suppose in that sense I am at the best place for my son, my grandson and my other grandchildren because I am concerned about what is happening in the country and the things we are missing because of the mismanagement of the government.

There has been quite a bit of talk about what a positive budget this is. As I often do, I would like to begin my talk to that crowd of Liberals over there by saying that I would indeed give them a backhand compliment, a reluctant compliment. I know that they have a congenital disposition to spend and somehow they have been able to resist spending all of the money that has come in because of the booming economy of the last couple of years.

First, I do not think the Liberal government can claim any credit for the booming economy. I believe everything that has happened has been despite the government. If we were not next to the very buoyant economy of the Americans who have done things a little better than we have and have thereby boosted their economy, we would probably not be in this position.

Furthermore the prosperity we seem to have is also illusory. Because of the value of our Canadian dollar every one of us has taken a hit that is basically invisible since this government took power by the falling of the Canadian dollar. The value of the goods we purchase is more expensive than what it ought to be when we import goods and services.

What we get for our product is greatly lessened in its value because of exchange rates. That is just a simple fact, and it is one which is not apparent to many Canadians. We are used to calling a dollar a dollar and we forget that the dollar we are dealing with now is worth only a fraction of what it used to be.

Sometimes when I speak to students I apologize to them because of the fact that my generation and I allowed the last 30 years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments to do what they have done to the country. I sometimes just shake my head in wonderment.

What a rich country we have. We are rich in resources, in mines and in minerals. We are rich in agriculture across the country. We have much potential. We have oil. We have natural gas. We have the ability to produce because we have a very good educational system which will prepare our young people to become productive citizens, whether it is in engineering, in the medical field or whatever.

What do we see? We see a huge debt that has been accumulated over the last 30 years. We get governments like the one we have now that are much more interested in the spin that they can put on it than in what is actually happening, thereby, I feel, effectively putting a blinder on the eyes of Canadians so that they do not know what is happening. Governments sure are successful at their messaging, at getting their message out and making everyone feel good.

This is a feel good budget. This is a political budget. There is much more in it for the politicians, for the Liberal government and for their hopes of re-election than there is in actual fact. Frankly I am very distressed when governments do this.

I have asked a number of people how much money the Liberals put into health care in the last budget. I received two answers. The most frequent one was that they did not really know, but those people who had read the paper and had taken notice said that it was $11.5 billion. This is on the verge of not being factual.

Canadians have been deceived into thinking that there is $11.5 billion in the budget for health care. There is not. The Liberals announced $2 billion that year, $2 billion the next and then three years at $2.5 billion. It was not cumulative. It was the amount that is above the floor from which they started.

I feel so inhibited, having been an instructor and a teacher for many years. I would love to have a graph here to show that. When $11.5 billion per year are added year after year, most people have in their minds the idea that it is increasing year by year.

I do not think it is against House rules to use an imaginary figure as a prop. In fact what has happened is that in the first year they increased it $2 billion. In the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2 billion. Then they added half a billion and the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2.5 billion. In the next year there was no further increase, so that was $2.5 billion.

The Liberals added up all those numbers over five years and communicated that they had put $11.5 billion into the health budget. It will not be finished until long past the mandate of the present government because it was a five year projection. It is very dishonest to do that when we are talking about a one year budget.

There should be a very clear delineation so that Canadian taxpayers can understand what is annual. I think it is good to have long term planning. There is no doubt about it. The further we plan ahead, the better off we are. However, it is deceptive to claim this and then to message it when the facts are quite different. It is wrong in that it lulls the Canadian people into a deep sleep and a sense of happiness that all is well when in fact because of what is happening that is not true.

Let us look at the tax cuts outlined in the budget. The government is claiming $58 billion in tax cuts. Despite my age and my size, even I am tempted to stand and click my heels. It is incredible that we have $58 billion in tax cuts.

Let us look at what it really is. We have $7.5 billion in social spending on child benefits. While the Liberals are talking tax cuts and messaging them as such, they are really saying that they are increasing spending for child benefits. That is not a tax cut. It just is not. It does not reduce the tax bill. For someone who has no children it has no application whatsoever. They cannot claim that it is a tax cut because tax cuts have to do with people who are paying taxes. They are mixing together income and expenditures.

Let us look at the next one. During that same five year period, and here they are talking five years again, Canadian pension plan premiums will go up almost $30 billion. That too is a tax because it is taken from people and it is given, to a great extent, to people other than those who are paying it. To call it an investment, dare I say it, is a falsification. It is not an investment. It is a tax.

Then they are claiming another $13.5 billion. They are saying that if they had not done away with indexation they would have taken that much more tax away from the people. Now they say they will not take it and therefore it is a tax cut. That is absurd.

The whole reasoning of the government is based on political considerations and messaging. The facts just do not bear it out. We will see in the future the effect it has on the economy and on the taxpayer bottom line, on their paycheques. It just does not add up and Canadians will be aware of that.