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 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened quite carefully to what our hon. colleague was saying in this debate and I have a couple of questions for him.

He said something to the effect that it was terrible to give the option to Quebec to possibly separate. I agree with that because I want the country to stay together. However, what would his alternative be? Would it be to say that no province or no people within a province could vote democratically and make decisions on what they want to do? That is my first question.

The second one has to do with the issue of clarity. It seems to me that the votes in the past on this issue have been very unclear. They could take our country into a kind of abyss, which is exactly what the member wants to avoid. It seems to me that it would be in the greatest interest of keeping Canada together if those people voting in a province on such an issue have a clear question so that they clearly understand the consequences of their decision.

As a result I believe—and I think the hon. member would too and I ask him to express this—that if the people got a clear question and clearly saw the consequences then they would vote to stay in Canada because it is a wonderful country and it is part of what we are all together. We want to stay together. I would like the hon. member's comments on those two questions.

[Petitions, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my second petition has to do with taxes. I have 132 names, added to thousands, that are calling for this government in the next budget to give a substantial tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years.

[Petitions, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I too am both honoured and distressed at presenting a petition from my constituents and those from surrounding areas on the issue of child pornography.

The petitioners are distressed at the inaction of the government to protect our children. They ask that the government take whatever measures are necessary in order to reinstate the law in that regard.

[Privilege, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this because I have been on the finance committee now for two years. I think every committee report has been leaked beforehand. Even the most recent one on the prebudget hearings was leaked the day before. The quotations in the paper said “a Liberal member who did not want to be identified said” and there were direct quotations from it. It is a great problem and I really wish we could solve it.

[Employment Insurance, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the finance minister a question. If he changes the subject to talk about something else, I will assume that he has no reasonable explanation.

In our finance committee hearings a number of presenters called the excessive EI premiums a breach of trust. The act does not permit the minister to use EI as a source of general revenue. Why does the finance minister not just take the premiums down to $2.05 as recommended by the chief actuary?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be wrong but I am suspicious that the minister is beginning a speech. I think he may not be aware that we are still in questions and comments.

[Taxation, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's middle income employed wage slaves are being crushed by their tax burden. These middle income people have worked for 20 or 30 years and they just cannot seem to get ahead because half of their earnings are taken from them month after month, year after year. They just keep getting more and more abuse at the hands of the tax man.

Will the finance minister give some hope to these taxpayers by committing substantial broad based tax relief that will actually bring their tax load down?

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that you were engaged in a conversation, but you missed something. The hon. member from the PC Party is blatantly breaking House rules in debate by using members' names. I think you should correct him on that.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of five years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the Senate as may be designated or established for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to the Senate.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-9, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 6 with the following:

“(a) the interpretation of the”