Ken Epp

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing I can say.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

It is not a bloody place. It is an honourable place.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, since the member used seven minutes of the ten, I assume I will have seven minutes to respond.

The member has misinterpreted my motivation here. He seems to be implying that I do not want to listen to the people. That is false. The accusation he is making is factually incorrect. I do not only want to hear from special interest groups, I also want to hear from ordinary Canadians. That is why I said what I said.

The member indicated that members of parliament are invited to go to their ridings and have consultation meetings. I take my job very seriously and, Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have noticed, but when the House is in session I am essentially always here, pretty well 99.9% of the time. It is very seldom that I allow functions in my riding to take precedence over my job here because I am here to represent them.

On the weekends and on the weeks out, I go back to my riding to listen to the people. What did the government do when it prorogued the House? It chose the week that we were scheduled to be out where we would have normally scheduled our town hall meetings. We did not have enough time to schedule, advertise and book them before those two weeks of break. The week we would have had in order to give advance notice was taken away from us by the opening of the House and the throne speech.

What has the finance committee done about November 11? That is a so-called week out, when members of parliament go back to their ridings to listen to the concerns of their people. It has scheduled a finance committee.

As the member for Elk Island, I am a faithful member of the finance committee. When it is sitting and listening to witnesses I am there every minute of the time. When those people are there because they have taken the time to prepare a presentation, I will be there to hear them.

What has the finance committee done? It has taken me out of my riding during that week and scheduled meetings in Toronto, just totally ignoring the fact that for those of us in the west, travel time is necessary. We have duties in our ridings on November 11 for Remembrance Day. The member just says “That does not matter, we can get back to our riding in one hour, let us not worry about the west”. That is the whole point. He also said that Canadians should be heard on an issue as important as the budget, and I agree. However, there is another important issue, the issue British Columbians have with the Nisga'a deal?

I will reflect his words right back. He said “they had better be very careful”. I am telling them that they had better be very careful because if they do not listen to British Columbians they will be in much worse trouble than if we do not go around with our prebudget hearings. I have a very simple conclusion.

I want the budget to be representative of what the people want. I want the finance committee to travel, but I want the Indian affairs committee to travel too. If they deny that, what else can we do? They have pushed us into a corner.

Do I not have seven minutes, Madam Speaker? I wish in the future that you would stop those members halfway, because I think we should have at least as much time as they have to make their points.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am just trying desperately to do something that will force the government to act democratically. I want to do what is right for Canada and Canadian citizens. I want to do what is right for the voters of the country. I want to make sure the country stays together. I want to make sure that the people of British Columbia are heard on this matter. I want to make sure that the natives of our country are heard. I want to make that there is an agreement between both parties that is amicable to both sides, instead of doing this behind closed doors and making an agreement that is partially acceptable to some of the people on one side while some 40% of natives are saying no to the Nisga'a agreement. We are not being fair to them if we do not make these changes.

I also want to make sure that the Canadians who are footing the bill for this and who have to live with the consequences of this, whether they be citizens of British Columbia or citizens anywhere in the country, have the right to be heard and that their genuine needs will be addressed.

I stand by what I said earlier. I wish we did not have to do this. I really wish we could say “Sure, let the finance committee travel”. I still would not let it go to London for this photo op, but let it travel and listen to Canadians. I would not mind that but the photo op thing is absolutely ridiculous. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

I certainly want to urge the government to change its mind for once and admit that maybe it made a mistake. Why does it not for once exercise a little humility and say that it should go to British Columbia to hear the genuine concerns of Canadian citizens over there.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is not often that I thank members from the New Democratic Party for interrupting me while I am making a speech, but this time I would certainly concur with what the member is saying. Again it is an atrocious example of the dictatorial nature of this Liberal government that it will do things outside of the House which should be done in here and which should be done in consultation with members of parliament who represent their constituents and are accountable to them. Instead, the government does this when there is no accountability. Even the members present in the Liberal Party do not have anything to say on this. It is atrocious.

The Nisga'a agreement is a deal with two groups of people. We are not trying to obstruct the government. Probably the members over there will fail to understand this because of their inability to understand common sense, but we are actually trying to help them. If this deal is rammed through this parliament like it was in the legislature in British Columbia, the Liberals will put at risk the very future of our children, our grandchildren, our whole society, our country, the unity of the country and the fiscal accountability of the country. Everything will be at risk unless they reach an agreement between both parties.

We are taking this action today of blocking the travel of the finance committee. The Liberals are quite right in that it is a move to force them to listen to the people of British Columbia. We are absolutely fed up with the fact that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia are continually ignored by this government.

The country has a unity problem. People right across the country from coast to coast are asking “What is wrong with Ottawa? Can we not fix it?” The fact is that they can fix it, and we want to help them do that by engaging in a debate.

It is an affront to every member of parliament to bring in a Nisga'a agreement with a prior condition that not one dot or tittle in it can be amended. That is the condition. It is all or nothing.

We find a number of elements in that agreement to be quite offensive to Canadians. The Liberals are wrong. We are not permitted to amend it. Therefore we have no choice but to oppose it. The only way we can achieve this is by getting the people informed and involved. Contrary to what the minister said the other day, the more people find out about the facts of this agreement, the more they will say that it is going in the right direction but there are immense problems with it which must be fixed or else we are in trouble. Of course it is a ploy. It is a tactic we are using. The Liberals may not like it but it is in direct response to what they are doing, not to us. I have a pretty thick skin and it is padded beneath. I am not worried about that. I am worried about the fact that they are insulting and ignoring the voters and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

They can fix this. If they want to do their travel, all we are asking is that on an issue as important as this we should also have a committee travel, that committee being the committee on Indian affairs. Let it go to British Columbia and hear directly from British Columbians what their genuine concerns are.

This is of great importance. I do not know how to emphasize it. I know I could be dramatic. I could get on the news tonight if I stood on the table and maybe took off my shoe and banged it on the desk like Khrushchev did. However, I will not do that because I believe in the dignity of this place and that dignity is destroyed when ordinary principles of democracy are so trodden on by the government.

I believe that in order to solve the problem we must have both committees travelling. That is all we are asking for. We will absolutely not obstruct parliament, but we will not permit them to obstruct parliament either. If they do so, they can expect from a responsible official opposition that there will be a little bit of a tactic in return. They ought not to be surprised when they have been this blatant in their abuse of the democratic process.

Because of the importance of this, I will move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “be permitted in 1999 to—”

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this as a member of the finance committee. I have also had the privilege of travelling with the committee to different parts of the country during last fall's hearings. I think it has both merits and demerits. There are a lot of good presentations made by different people who represent different points of view which are very valuable to the finance committee. However, I seriously question whether they are useful in the sense of actually affecting the budget, since over and over again the message that we have heard from Canadians in those hearings has been systematically ignored.

There have been many times when we had a convergence of opinion in a certain direction and it was not done. I think probably the biggest example is the tremendous message we had last year of calling for tax cuts. The government has chosen instead, in every budget that we have had since this Liberal government took power, to increase tax revenues. Therefore, I think going around and listening is largely a public relations measure on the part of the government because it gives the appearance that it is listening, when in fact it is not.

However I still like to say that as a member of the committee I found the input to the committee valuable. It is really what happens after it comes to the committee that is not acceptable. After having funded at great public expense to the taxpayers these trips around the country, most of the time the government ignores what happens in those hearings.

There is a much greater issue. In fact there are several issues.

This motion that has been brought forward asks for, among other things, approval of the finance minister to make a big splash in London next week. I really object to that. I would object to it even if it were not for the Nisga'a deal.

It is just a fact of life. I think the taxpayers out there should know that when the committee travels, it is a very costly effort. It costs a great deal of money. Not only are there the travel and hotel expenses for the members of the parliamentary committee, we also have the support staff. In many instances their number exceeds the number of members on the committee. We have to have translators since our Official Languages Act requires that translators from English to French and French to English be available. I have no objection to that but it is a cost which is greatly increased when we move the committee away from Ottawa.

Here in Ottawa the facilities are all in place. The translation booths are in the committee rooms. We can use the committee rooms. We have the staff who are on salary come in and do the translating and everything else. It is much more economical to do it here.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I think Canadians should be heard. When I say this it sounds as if I do not want to listen to Canadians and that is opposite to what I believe. However, I think there is a much more efficient method.

I would like to see the procedure changed so that each member of parliament is given perhaps a week to go to his or her riding to conduct meetings in every little community hall and listen to the people directly.

The finance committee most of the time hears only from groups, which is a matter of efficiency. It is quite efficient to listen to people who represent perhaps 1,000 or 10,000 people, or even more if they are from other groups that have a large constituency. It is good to hear from them but we fail to hear from the ordinary taxpayers, the people at home trying to make ends meet who do not belong to this or that organization but are taxed to death. We do not listen to them.

I would like to see the role of the member of parliament greatly enhanced. Members of parliament should spend a week or two specifically on prebudget hearings. A composite report should be made by all 301 members of parliament based on what they heard in their ridings so that the voice of the people is heard in this place instead of simply the dictatorship of the Liberal government.

When the vote takes place I would like it to be a free vote. As it is now, members are punished by their respective parties, by the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP, or the Bloc, if they do not vote the way they are told to vote. The Reform Party stands alone in saying that the first obligation of members of parliament is to represent the people who sent them here. That is paramount.

As a member of the finance committee, I do not mind and in fact I like going to other parts of the country. It broadens my perspective, but I want to get a real perspective. For example last year when we were in Saskatoon everybody went for some fancy lunch somewhere. Everyone can tell from looking at me sideways that I could skip the odd lunch without any permanent damage, so instead of going to a taxpayer paid lunch, I went for a walk on the streets of Saskatoon. I talked to different individuals.

During my walk I met a guy on Second Street. He had an old 1959 Meteor like the one I had. I struck up a conversation with him. We talked about his car. I talked to him about taxes. I talked to him about the finances of the country. He was a senior. He was very concerned about the state of affairs. He was adamant that we should cut taxes. Was he heard? Did the NDP member of parliament who represents him bring that message to cut taxes forward? No, I do not think so. That is what we should be doing.

I also want to address the London trip issue. I hate to say this, but the trip is really not to hear from Canadians; it is a photo-op for the finance minister. Think of what is involved here. It has almost the same logistics as running a war. We have to move all of the people who are involved from the House of Commons to London.

All of the media has to set up in London. They are already set up here. It would be so easy to make this financial statement, this update here, but no, it has to be done in London. The media have to move their trucks, satellite dishes and everything there. I am sure they are willing to do it because it is big news when the finance minister speaks. It touches the pocketbook of every Canadian. The media will be there but at tremendous expense.

It costs the taxpayers money not only to send the representatives and staff from the House of Commons, but there is all of the equipment and the rental of the rooms, all of which are incremental costs. Besides that, taxpayers will pay through the funding to CBC to have its representatives there. It could be done here. The message is the same.

Why do the Liberals want to go to London? I am guessing here but I think it is probably because they have done some polling and that is an area that needs a little bit of propping up with a little bit of activity. So the taxpayer is being asked to fund this.

Whether the finance minister goes there or not is one question. Another question is whether the finance committee travels to other parts of the country. But the big overriding question in this whole issue is one which is even more important.

The House leader of the Liberal Party called this all sorts of bad names with respect to Reform. I resent that. The people of Elk Island sent me here to represent them.

What we have in front of us, and this has to do directly with finances as well, is the government's unwillingness to debate the Nisga'a agreement with the Canadian public. It has been so one-sided until this stage that it is absolutely shameful. Absolutely we have to come to some resolution on these issues. It cannot be done satisfactorily in a democracy, it cannot be done satisfactorily within the finances that we have available to us, unless we have the consensus of the people.

Every time I have entered into an agreement it has been with someone else. For example, I recently hired a new staff assistant. He is an excellent young man and I think he would want me to say that. He will probably send this part of Hansard to his mom and dad. He is a great guy. Before he came to work for me, we sat down and agreed on what he would do for me and what I would do for him. There are two parties to the agreement. We have all sorts of agreements with respect to salary, hours of work, travel conditions, all of those things. Some of them are ruled by the Board of Internal Economy. But we made an agreement.

With respect to the Nisga'a agreement, the Liberal government is failing to recognize that it is an agreement between the two parties to the agreement, not just one. Too much of that agreement was hammered out in secrecy behind closed doors. Even certain members of the government of the province of British Columbia were unable to receive information with respect to the details of it. It was hidden from them. When it was all done, a fait accompli, it was brought to the government by the NDP in British Columbia and it was rammed through.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for greater clarification, could I ask that I be given a copy of the motion that is now before the House? I would appreciate that.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, you said that you wished the procedure and House affairs committee would take this up, yet you have already ruled and made it a rule. Therefore, is it necessary for the procedure and House affairs committee to actually deal with it?

[Employment Insurance, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, government members keep bragging that they have $4 billion from EI funds. They are saying that we should thank them for taking $21 billion instead of the $25 billion they could have taken. That is like me thanking the robber who stole $21 from my wallet because he did not take $25.

On behalf of thousands of Canadians, small business owners and employees, will they reduce the premium to $2.05 and will they do it today?

[Employment Insurance, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts clearly show that the government is taking $40 billion per year more in income tax than it did in 1983. Besides this, Canadian employers and employees are being bilked to the tune of $21 billion in overpayments through the EI fund.

The finance minister has no legislative authority to take this excessive amount. He should reduce the EI premiums to $2.05 as computed by the chief actuary of the fund. I know it is tough for him, but why does the finance minister not just listen to hard pressed, long suffering, overtaxed Canadians, and stop taking—