Ken Epp

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when one talks about democracy not all votes require a simple majority. For a number of years I have been chairman or president of different organizations and we used Robert's Rules of Order , which are quite different from the rules here. In Robert's Rules of Order there are a number of occasions where an action to be taken requires more than 50%. For example—

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in Canada's parliament to speak in this very important debate. Frankly I wish sincerely that all members of the House would pay very close attention to what is going on.

This is as important a matter as I believe we can ever face in this country. It is the existence of our country itself. For some members of our assembly not to be paying full attention, not to be involved and not to be thinking this through is unfortunate.

I recognize that some are in committees and others have constituency work in other parts of the country. That is part of the role of a member of parliament. Perhaps it would have been better had we given more time to debate. I cannot but help begin my intervention this afternoon by pointing out to everyone who is listening that once again the government has invoked a form of closure.

Technically it is called time allocation, which is worse than closure, because it gives us less time for debate than closure does. I cannot understand. On an issue as important as this one we need to give ample time for not only parliamentarians to speak to it but for Canadians in general to become involved in the debate to discuss the issues, the pros and the cons, and to seek input into study of the bill. We need to travel across the country to see what Canadians want or aspire to in their country.

I am disgusted at the Liberal government and its total disregard for the democratic process in the House. It has a bill that is supposed to be related to a democratic process with respect to the possible secession of a province, yet it has trodden on the ability of parliamentarians to debate it fully not only here but around the country. It is very distressing. Although many members cannot possibly be here today, I know they would be here tomorrow, the day after, and on other days to take their turn expressing themselves.

This bill is called the clarity bill in its vernacular. I have heard several speakers say this afternoon that the bill lacks clarity. I am afraid I have to agree. Basically all it says is that there shall be clarity in the wording of the question and there shall be a clear majority. Neither the wording of the question nor the level of the majority nor the number of voters who have to participate in a vote for it to pass are spelled out.

It is a very undefined bill. All it says is that after the decision is made by the province choosing to secede parliament will study the question within certain time limits. It is not clear to me whether the bill even says that the threshold will be declared in advance. I think that is the intention of the bill but it could be interpreted otherwise. That is not a very good way of handling it.

I am certainly not willing right now to speculate on what a clear question should be. I can think of some things that perhaps one could put forward, but I hesitate to do it because of the possible ramifications of not making a wise choice. This needs a lot of careful thought. The question should be clear and succinct. When it is determined it should be included in the bill and debated in the House. The kind of question that would be considered clear should have been in Bill C-20.

Then there is the question of what proportion of the people should vote for it. Some said 50% plus one vote. Some said 58%. Some said two-thirds and so on. The goal of Bloc members is to separate from Canada. I accept that as their goal but I dislike it. One thing I must say about them is that in the six years I have observed their work in the House they have not wavered from their goal. Pretty well in every speech on no matter what topic they are able to weave into it that they want to get out of Canada. I regret that. If they ever do that it will pull out part of the heart of this country.

I am with members who say it is regrettable that we have to have this bill. Yet the reality is that a number of citizens, primarily in Quebec, have sent more separatists members here than other members.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to permit these members to table whatever they have in their hands this morning and then let us get on with the show.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very eager to ask questions. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to have two minutes for questions and comments.

[Shipbuilding Act, 1999, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House of Commons in Ottawa, representing the people, the taxpayers from my riding on this issue of great importance.

I appreciate the member who brought this bill forward. He, like many of us, recognize that there is an economic climate in Canada which makes it very difficult for our businesses, both small and large, to compete in the international market. Having this bill brought forward helps to signal to all that we have to do some things better than they are currently being done.

However, right at the beginning I have to indicate that although I am much in favour of promoting industry, business, and especially international trade, at this stage in my analysis of the bill I will be voting against it because of reasons I will express during my speech.

I would like to outline some of the things that are included in Bill C-213. I know that the deputy leader of the Tory party, the member for Saint John, who has major shipbuilding interests in her riding, has expressed interest in this and has said repeatedly that this will not cost the taxpayer a penny. She keeps assuring us that this will not cost the taxpayer any money. However, in my reading of the bill I do not see how that can be avoided since there are several provisions in the bill which I believe will cost the taxpayer money in directly subsidizing and propping up an industry which is not viable under our present rules in the country.

I am not sure that members of the Tory party, the Clark party, are true Conservatives because they are also promoting this type of socialistic propping up of a company. I am sure when their turn comes they will express what they really think about this. I look forward to hearing their arguments. I will put forward my arguments now. When their turn comes they will say what they want to say.

This bill, in its purpose, indicates that it is to promote shipbuilding in Canada and to make Canadian shipyards more competitive. I cannot argue with that. That is a very high and viable goal. I think all members in the House would agreed to it. However, it then goes on to say that this will be done through the establishment of a program where a maximum of 87.5% of the money borrowed by a company from a financial institution to purchase a commercial ship built in a Canadian shipyard will be eligible for a couple of benefits from the taxpayer.

This is where the cost to the taxpayer comes in. Canadians may say that they want to do that. They may say that they want to pool all their money and give it to these other businesses whether they can compete globally or not and in that way they will keep them in business and keep people working. That is not a bad goal. When we come right down to it, it is good to have people employed. It is good to have them working on things, especially when it comes to an export market.

However, the first of the benefits that the taxpayer will have to pick up is the guarantee by the federal government in the event of a default in the repayment of the loan. I do not see how the taxpayer is off the hook on that clause. Very clearly, some of the people who will be entering into a contract with a shipbuilding company for the building of a ship will not be able to pay for whatever reason. That happens in some proportion in all industries. With this guarantee, the taxpayer will end up paying the banks the amount of the default. That is what this says and that is how I understand it.

The other members who are promoting the bill may try to convince me that is not what it says, but those are the words and I can only go by the words.

The bill goes on to say that there are some conditions of bearing a rate of interest comparable to other loans from financial institutions to large and financially strong corporations. This is not a bad idea. This one would cost the taxpayers nothing. To say that a company is maybe not as strong as it could be and guarantee that its interest rates would be lower should actually increase the probability that it will be able to pay back the loan and it would increase the probability that the taxpayers would not be on the hook for it.

Then we go on. The Liberals are saying that they want to improve the tax treatment for lease financing for the purchase of a ship built in a Canadian shipyard. I would venture to say that it is probably a laudable goal for all businesses to have better tax provisions so that business can thrive whether it is a shipbuilding company or any other company in the country.

I would love to hear an explanation from the proponents of this bill about the last item, which I also believe will cost the taxpayers money. It says that this will provide for a refundable tax credit for a portion of the costs relating to the construction or refit of a commercial ship in a shipyard located in Canada or the conversion of a ship in such a shipyard. This is a tax expenditure. It is a refundable tax credit that will go to either the shipyard, if the ship is being built for someone outside the country, or to the owner of the ship if it is a Canadian shipping company. Perhaps this would be a way to provide an incentive for our finance minister's company to bring its ships back to Canada and actually fly a Canadian flag on them and pay Canadian taxes. That would be very interesting. Maybe we can buy the finance minister back. The costs to the taxpayer are included in that.

As I said at the beginning, given my present analysis I will be voting against the bill because of the very broad principle that I do not think the government should have the ability to take money out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians right across the country in order to prop up businesses that are not able to compete on an international basis because we have gone international now. It is not a valid use of the taxpayers' money.

I know exactly what they are going to say now, “How about the western farmers?” How about them? I had a farmer in Saskatchewan say to me “If I would have had a reasonable tax rate in the last 30 years, thanks to the Liberal and Conservative governments, I gave so much money in taxes, I would now be out of debt and I wouldn't have to worry as much in hopefully this short time of an agricultural income downturn”. We are taxed to death in this country”.

We need to have a reasonable tax regime not only for the shipbuilding companies but for all of them.

Whereas rolling stock on the railroad has a depreciation rate of about 10% per year and there is a decreasing balance of up to 40% for rolling stock for trucks, we already have a rule in place that allows them to depreciate on a straight line depreciation of one-third of the cost per year. In four years, because it has only half in the first and the last year, the total cost of the ship is totally written off as a tax write-off. That is a very favourable provision. I think taxpayers are already giving a considerable impetus to this particular industry.

We also need to get really with it in terms of our negotiations with other countries, particularly our large next door neighbour, and insist that we get fair rules. It is generally known, for example, that ships that are built for the American market, both military and domestic, must be built and must be maintained in the United States, whereas in Canada that is not true.

I am so sorry that my time is up. I would like to say that my mind is still open but I have those questions about the bill. I think we have a better way of solving this problem.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is imputing motive and that is against the rules of the House. He cannot do that.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is clearly in the parliamentary rules that one cannot charge a member with misrepresenting the facts. It is against the standing orders and I would ask you to ask the member—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a valid point.

First I would like to assure him that when I was nine years old, having gone through that lesson, I learned not to break windows. To my knowledge I have not broken one since then, even accidentally, so do not worry about the windows here.

I would like to talk about the idea of ministerial responsibility because the Prime Minister said that the ministers would be responsible. Indeed it is a measure of integrity that when things have really blown apart the minister resigns.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member for Wentworth—Burlington is saying. He had a very important bill. He came to members of the Reform Party and got them to sign a sheet of paper which said we want to make sure it is debated in the House. Reform Party members agreed to that. Then he changed the bill. Now it has a different substance in some areas. The signatures no longer stand. It was simply on a matter of principle that he was given a set of signatures that applied to something other than what he was presenting in the House. It is a completely different issue. He should understand that. We want to preserve the integrity of Private Members' Business which is so important.

However, he has brought up the subject of integrity and I will just conclude with a simple statement. I expect him as a result of his commitment to integrity, honesty, openness and transparency to rise in support of this motion.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

A member opposite is saying no but I stand by my numbers. It is the same percentage applied to the whole population as it is to the sample plus or minus a very small range. If he wants to say 4,400 or 4,600, I will go along with that, but it is 4,500 plus or minus a small number.

Of those that had no cash forecasts, there would be 21,600 projects. Eleven per cent of them had no budget proposal. That means we could conclude that some 3,300 of these projects did not even have budget proposals, and they were approved and received taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, you have signalled that my time is up and I wish I could go on. I am trying to give a message to the Liberals on the other side. Today when they are asked to vote on this important motion, I appeal to them to do as will all other members on this side. Let us vote for the people, for the taxpayers and not just for our own self-preservation.