Ken Epp

[Petitions, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist this. Getting me to stand and not recognizing me for 20 times adds to my much needed exercise regimen, so I thank you for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud today to stand on behalf of constituents, not only in my riding but also in one of the Liberal held ridings in Edmonton, as I recognize these addresses here.

These people are stating to the House that where they place the protection of children at the highest possible priority, they request that parliament take whatever measures are necessary in order to immediately reinstate the criminal code provision which makes the possession of child pornography illegal.

On behalf of the petitioners, I am very pleased to present these 128 names, adding to the over 500,000 now on record on this issue.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member who just spoke and it concerns taxes. As long as we have been here I think we have proposed that taxes should be cut. We have proposed that the debt should be reduced, thereby reducing interest payments and freeing up more taxpayer money to pay for the programs we value. The economy should be kick started by giving substantial tax cuts, not the kind the Liberal government keeps giving.

My question is one of curiosity. Maybe I will speak slowly and the member can answer me quietly so that no one else will hear. During the run-up to the budget the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, in responding to questions about tax cuts, quite often totally denied that tax cuts were in the works. The Prime Minister on one occasion even said that they would not cut taxes, that it was not the Canadian thing to do. I would like to know exactly what helped to change their minds. I am curious about the process and I am very glad they are moving toward reducing taxes. When we form the government we will go the rest of the way and do it right.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the Liberal speeches today with a lot of interest. Obviously Liberal members have bought into the plan, and I understand that. That is part of their party plan. The budget has been presented. Many Liberal members I am sure sincerely support everything in the budget. I suppose all of them will vote for it. We expect that.

Would the member be so bold as to be really candid with us and say something about the lack of planning to actually reduce the debt? The debt is standing at $576.8 billion. The government has said it will pay $3 billion a year against the debt out of its contingency fund if at the end of the year it has found no other way to spend it. In the event that the government actually does not spend it, that means it will take almost 200 years to pay off the debt. Meanwhile we are paying $40 billion a year in interest.

Would the member, in her great candid spirit, tell us what she thinks and what members of her constituency think with respect to actual debt repayment and reduction of the interest thereby?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague from the Bloc. I want him to know that as an Albertan, as a member of the Reform Party and as a member of the House I consider him to be part of the Canadian family. He is a Canadian. He lives in Canada and he serves in Canada's parliament.

I heard throughout his speech too often that Quebec was not getting its fair share. I have done a little study on equalization, which is what he was talking about. As I recall, the Quebec population is now about 24% of Canada's population.

The numbers I have over the last 10 years show that of the equalization that was paid out to the seven so-called have not provinces, which excludes Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, Quebec received in excess of 60% of the money as a percentage. Overall in Canada, including all ten provinces, Quebec received between 40% and 50%. The peak was around 48% in one year according to my records.

With a population of 24% and getting 48% of all equalization payments in the country, how can the member say that Quebec is not getting its fair share? It is getting twice the average, which seems to me to be inconsistent with his statement. Before I sit down, with that I would like to invite him to stay in Canada.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech and was really interested in the feedback the member had from people in her riding. It is consistent with what I get from the people in my riding. I would like some clarification. In the last half of her speech the member went through her list pretty much in the same order of priorities as the finance minister did in the budget speech with debt repayment last. Yet if I heard correctly at the beginning of her speech she indicated that the highest priority of people in her riding was to reduce the debt. I think it was around 40% and that was the highest rate. I am wondering whether the member would confirm that I heard correctly.

I would also like to remind all members of the House that the debt reduction plan of the government is dismal indeed. In the document I received yesterday the net public debt every year from 1998 onward to the projection into the year 2001-02 is $576.8 billion, $576.8 billion, $576.8 billion, $576.8 billion, the same number four years in a row. There is no plan for debt reduction at all, except there is $3 billion in a contingency fund and if we do not find some place to spend it, yes, we will apply it to the debt.

I would like the hon. member's comments and clarification on what I think I heard.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. The member in his speech made some comments about the Reform Party's position on health care. I point out to him and to anybody else who happened to hear those scurrilous statements that they were false and what follows is the truth on the matter.

The Reform Party is, has been and I presume will be, a party that listens to the people. We are a grassroots party. From the beginning Canadians have told us by our own membership polls and other indicators that we have had from many public meetings that health care is priority number one.

It is true it has always been our highest priority. All one needs to do is to look at the literature. Instead of simply spewing back what others have said about us incorrectly, look at the actual literature from our various campaigns. Look at what we have actually proposed. It has always been a high priority. We have a great commitment, contrary to what they are saying about us, to the health care system. It is our number one priority. We would like to prop up and buy some more equipment for hospitals instead of fountains in Shawinigan.

I wanted to put that on the record. I do not know whether the member wants to comment on it or whether he has another scurrilous comment to make. Unfortunately that is what happens in these debates but I wish he would simply stay with the truth and recognize that is what our party is about.

[Canada Elections Act, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when we were interrupted for the vote we were in fact dealing with a motion which was under Routine Proceedings, so we are still in Routine Proceedings.

[Human Resources Development, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister who arranges our tax levels is the final banker. He is the trustee of the money that taxpayers are obligated to pay. Canadians are looking to him to oversee the money management of the government.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said:

—the Minister of Finance has stated his support for the programs administered by the HRD department—

Since the finance minister supports the human resources minister even after the billion dollar boondoggle, how much would she have to lose before he withdrew that support and showed Canadians they could trust him?

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a move of sanguinity and of providing some accommodation to the goal of Bloc members, I wonder if we could give them unanimous consent to table any documents they have in hand right now, provided they are ready to table them in both official languages. Let us give them approval. I ask for unanimous consent in that regard.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard you say Mr. Manley for Mr. Boudria, Mr. Boudria not being present. Does that not require unanimous consent?