Ken Epp

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to stand in Canada's parliament this afternoon to debate the issue of the budget.

If I go by the things that people in my riding talk to me about, then the budget, taxes and the way the government spends our money are the biggest issues.

I had the privilege of standing at a couple of trade fairs a few weeks ago. One was held in Sherwood Park in my riding, which is probably the largest trade fair in the province. Around 25,000 or 30,000 people came through in the two and a half days we were there. In Fort Saskatchewan there was another very large sample of people. Almost all of them brought up the question: When will we ever get a tax break?

To speak to Bill C-71, which is a budget implementation bill, is indeed an honour and I think a high responsibility. I will do my best to represent the wishes of the people in my riding as I speak.

In a prologue to my speech I would like to comment on some of the things that have been said here. Until today I have said to many people that one thing about the Bloc members is that they are very focused. Their issue is one issue. They want to take their province out of our wonderful country and every speech which they give, every time they rise to speak, is focused on their goal of separating from Canada. I profoundly disagree with that goal. We know that the majority of people in Quebec do not want to leave Canada. Bloc members are really riding a dead horse. They are flogging it to try to make it run, but it will not go anywhere. However, today they have switched horses. Today they are not talking about separation. Today they are talking about wanting more from Canada.

Unfortunately, the whole program of transfer payments to the provinces is very convoluted. I have done a little study of it and the more I study it the more convoluted it seems to become and the more difficult to understand. However, the public accounts indicate that in proportion to the population Quebec has had above average transfers, that is, averaged over the population of the whole country. If we take the total number of contributions and divide that number by the population of the country, we get a smaller number than the contributions that are given to Quebec divided by its population. Quebec is above average. I do not think Quebecers would generally want to acknowledge that, but it is the truth.

Today we hear them talking about being against this one part of Bill C-71. In fact, what we are debating at report stage is their amendment to remove that part where the federal government transfers money to the provinces for health care, for the CHST. The reason they are giving, and it has been quite clear in their speeches, I do not think they have tried to obfuscate it, is because the amount of money they will be getting will be going down and they are against that.

I have a lot of respect, not only for the people of Quebec, but for the members of the Bloc party who were sent here by their ridings to represent their ridings. I have a lot of respect for them individually. I believe they are doing well to speak this way and to put this amendment forward because they are doing it to protect their constituents, which is a legitimate role in debate in parliament.

However, if we look at the larger picture for all of the country, and of course this is where they are sort of out of the picture, it seems to me eminently responsible and eminently fair that the amount of money that is transferred by the federal government to fund programs, which in some cases are administered by the provincial governments, should be equal with respect to a per capita contribution.

I regret that in the House we cannot use props. I taught for 31 years and I would have been lost without the use of a blackboard in the old days, or the whiteboard with all the colours nowadays and the overhead projector and the computer generated image on the screen. I wish I could show a chart of some of these things because I think we would communicate much better. It is unfortunate that we cannot do that in the House, as they do, for example, in the Congress of the United States.

If I had the ability to communicate in that way I would draw a picture of a huge barrel. All of the taxpayers of the country would contribute money which would be put into that barrel. Some time ago I computed at what rate we were putting money into that barrel. Actually it is not a difficult thing to do. I think we have around $150 billion a year in government expenditures. Clearly money goes into the barrel if we are going to spend it, either by borrowing or from another source. We have in the neighbourhood of 15 million taxpayers, so it works out very easily to about $10,000 per person that we put into this barrel.

My question to the members of the Bloc party and to all members of the House is, what is an equitable way of distributing that money with respect to the support of education, health care and social services in the different provinces?

When it comes to health care and education, I really think an equal per capita grant for all of the provinces would be pretty fair. The cost of educating a student, whether in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick or any one of the other provinces, would be reasonably close. It would not be exact. We know there are different costs of living. There are different costs of getting an education in different parts of the country, but it would be really close.

The same is true for health care. There are some variances. If there is an area with a dense population it is more economical to provide health care to that population. If there is a larger area with the same population it costs a little a more. There could be a small adjustment for a sparse population.

If we talk about a sparse population, I do not think that Quebec is more sparsely populated than any other province in the country. We have more densely populated areas in the south of my province and in all provinces. When we get away from the south there are sparsely populated areas where we have the costs of medical helicopters and so on.

Speaking specifically to this amendment, I think the House of Commons should be against it. If I may be so bold, I am going to appeal to the members of the Bloc who represent their ridings and constituents to consider voting against this amendment, in the interest of fairness, in the interest of getting along with each other in our country. Rather, let us look at budget implementation which gives fairness on a per capita basis.

I would also like to say that while they want to amend this bill because their actual contributions are going down, that is a tacit recognition that their per capita contribution from the federal government is higher. If we move to an equal per capita rate and theirs goes down, logically they have admitted that theirs is too high in comparison to other Canadians.

I would also point out that in the same budget, but in a different bill, we implemented the matters of the transfers to the provinces through the transfer payments. In that particular instance Quebec is getting a great deal more money, while the transfers to provinces like Manitoba are being reduced, and we did not see those members proposing amendments to change that.

[Petitions, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, these petitions keep pouring in. Today I have another 109 signatures on a petition that calls for fairness for families who choose to have one parent stay at home to look after their children instead of farming them out to others. There are 109 names, mostly from people of Sherwood Park and Gibbons, in the wonderful riding of Elk Island.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of residents of the beautiful constituency of Elk Island. Some of the names on this petition I actually recognize. They are people I know. They are asking, as many Canadians are, that the tax code be revised so that it be fair to those who choose to have one of the children's own parents raise them at home instead of sending them out to have that done by someone else.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will also to be very short.

We need to focus on what this bill actually says instead of much of the talk that has been going on here on the issue of gun control itself.

This private member's bill is a very important one. It says in the desire of Canadians to prevent the deaths and accidental deaths that come from improper use of firearms and also the criminal use of firearms, that Canadians, especially this week, demand and deserve that their money be spent where it is going to be effective.

My colleague's private member's bill focuses on it very well. It says that this bill should automatically expire after five years unless it is proven effective in doing the job. In other words, this is an issue which is certainly part of being a good steward of the taxpayers' money, but it goes much beyond that. It says that where we spend that money we want the job to be done right.

There should not be a Liberal in the House who would hesitate to vote for this bill. Surely they too would want to cause the fast expiry of any bill or any procedure which is proven ineffective. That is what this bill says about gun control, or whatever it is called. It is not really gun control. Right now it is a gun registration system. The control element is essentially non-evident in what the Liberal government is doing. The bill before us today is simply calling for that to be evaluated.

I will tell the House this. If there is empirical evidence of the effectiveness of what the Liberals are doing, I will vote for it. But if there is empirical evidence that it is ineffective, as we on this side suspect it will be based on scientific and statistical evidence, then I want to see that bill gone. I want the taxpayers' money to be spent and I want the government to be doing that which is truly effective in stopping the criminal misuse of firearms.

I cannot state this strongly enough. We were all shocked and horrified this week, as people in Ottawa were several weeks ago, by the blatant gunning down of innocent people by another person with a gun. Of course we want to stop that. How we wish those people had not had a gun. But is the result of that that we are simply going to confiscate all the firearms? I really have a problem with that.

We need to make sure that we are enacting effective legislation. I would urge all members to vote in favour of this.

[Preclearance Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when members' statements and question period interrupted us I was talking about the very first letter of this bill.

It is a good bill. I personally think there should be no reason for us not to support it. It will save taxpayers some money. It will make travel better for Canadians travelling to other countries, as well as those travelling to other countries for whom Canada is only a stopping point. I believe the regulations will be adequate to preserve the security of the country. If not, we will chase that down when it comes. We need to be sure that the criminals do not get away with anything because of this.

I was talking about the very first letter of the bill. It is Bill S-22. The first letter is S , which stands for Senate. I said that we should really improve this. This is something that is long overdue. It is too bad that we on this side, every time this happens, have to remind the government that what we have is a failed part of democracy, and that is because the Senate is not elected. There is no excuse for that.

The Prime Minister said during the 1993 election campaign, and I have said it so often that I know it by heart, that “Within two years of being the government we will have an elected Senate”. He promised as Prime Minister, “I can make that happen”.

Instead of castigating him for a broken promise, which I would be slightly tempted to do, I would rather put it on a positive note. Quite clearly, before 1993, our Prime Minister was convinced that it was a good idea or he would not have said it. It is a good idea in his mind. It is certainly a good idea in the minds of Canadians. There is no reason in the world for this not to happen. All he has to do is appoint to the Senate, without any constitutional change, the people who are chosen by the electors.

In Alberta, for example, we had a Senate election. Two people were democratically chosen by the people. They are ready to serve the next time there is an opening for the province of Alberta. All the Prime Minister has to do is say that when the vacancy becomes available “I will appoint the person who the people have chosen”. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a compromise, but at least the people serving in the Senate would be the choice of the people rather than the political choice of the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister wants to take this reasoning to the ultimate, if he feels that he can better choose who is to represent Alberta or any other province in the Senate, then why does he not do it for MPs? Why do we have elections for members of parliament? Why do we not just let the Prime Minister appoint whomever he will, in whatever riding. We would have nothing but Liberals in the House. Would that not be wonderful?

Unfortunately Hansard does not indicate sarcasm, so let the record show that the member was dripping with sarcasm when he made that statement. That way it will appear on the record.

I will rest my case there. I would be very pleased to support the bill if it came from an elected Senate with the full legitimacy of what we know and understand to be democracy.

[Taxation, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible since the government took out $21 billion. It is totally irresponsible.

Since 1993 2.5 million Canadians have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into higher tax brackets. While the rates go down, they move people into another category and they end up paying more. Over 840,000 low income families in poverty have been added to the tax rolls so that they now can pay taxes too. That brings the government another $10 billion. Why will the government not show some compassion for these poor Canadians who, unlike hockey players and some certain shipping companies, cannot earn their income—

[Taxation, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying the highest personal income taxes in the G-7 and it is getting worse.

The average Canadian taxpayer will pay $2,020 more in 1999 than in 1993. Those are Department of Finance figures. These taxpayers are feeling the pain. They know their bottom line is way down, thanks to this tax hungry Liberal government.

On today's royal pain day the taxpayers want relief. Is there some preparation R on the horizon? Why will the government not relieve the pain?

[Preclearance Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to make a few comments on this very important bill.

We have the opportunity for Canadians to engage in a little of streamlining to reduce costs a bit. I think I would be in favour of that as would thousands and thousands of taxpayers who today are facing the taxpaying deadline. They realize they have less and less money for themselves because the government keeps taking more and more.

Bill S-22 has a plan in it to streamline some costs. Passengers who are merely travelling through Canada to another destination would not have to go through Canadian customs. I think we would applaud that.

I have a small concern which some people may not even notice. It is Bill S-22 instead of Bill C-22. For those who know the way things work around here, the S means that the bill was started in the Senate. Usually we would expect a bit of a debate from a Reformer on whether or not the Senate is justified in bringing in such a bill. I will surprise the House today by saying that I believe the Senate is justified in bringing in such a bill. The question at hand is not whether the Senate is justified in doing this but whether we could improve it.

When I was in high school many years ago we had a fine class motto which I have used all my life: “Good, better, best, never let it rest until your good is better and your better best”. That is an excellent plan.

It is good that the Senate should take a piece of legislation such as this, do some study on it, and realize that it is good for the different provinces in the country. There is nothing wrong with that. That is good.

What would be better? It would be better if the Senate were elected. Then when it did something like this there would be no need to question the legitimacy of what is being done. There would be no reason to question whether or not Canadian taxpayers and Canadian citizens are represented since the senators would have been elected by the very people they are purporting to represent. That would be better.

What would be best? It would be best if the Senate were a true triple E place where it would not only be elected but would have equal representation in the provinces.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I somehow still have this belief that the very essence, the very foundation of democracy is the elector voting. All of us have been sent here by people on the basis of a vote and we make decisions in this House based upon a vote. I just find it very ironic for us when we are dealing with such an important matter.

One of the things that bears very heavily on me is the fact that those people who are now being deployed to Macedonia to be ready to enter a ground war are soldiers from my riding. I should be able to be here to debate and to vote on whether or not we are committing them at the risk of their lives, their health and their safety. As their representative in the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the supreme body here, I should have the authority to actually express it in a vote. I do not think I will back down on that.

The member certainly made some pretty strong arguments on the other side. If he can convince me that every backbencher over there who votes with the government on command is fully apprised of all the issues, then maybe his argument would have a little more strength.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from North Vancouver I too have had a considerable amount of input from constituents on this issue. They are very concerned about what is happening. I also have had the full spectrum of responses.

Some have asked “What are you doing using my taxpayer money to bomb my relatives over there?” There is a very genuine concern on the part of people with family there who may not necessarily be on one side or the other of the initial conflict but are in the line of fire of the bombs that come from high.

Then there is the opposite view where others ask “How come when we have an internal conflict in our country we have to take on the whole world in order to try to solve it?” Those are questions that we need to work through by increasing debate. We need to see if we can find a solution to the problems.

I am very concerned that the government is proceeding in a way which I think is perhaps very ill advised. Regardless of what we do in our country, it is very important for us to have the consensus and support of our people. That can only come by having a debate and by having a vote on an issue of great importance.

We know from the government that it does not like to have debate on things which are controversial. A day or so ago we had the unseemly event of the government invoking time allocation on matters that it did not want to have too many people across the country getting upset about. It used time allocation and said “We will not talk about it. We will just do it and we will tell our guys how to vote”.

I am also concerned about the fact that members are not given the opportunity to cast a vote on Canada's involvement. That is wrong. We should be able to express our support for our troops if we are to send them. Or, we should be able to say we are not sending them for very good reasons. That can only come when there is open and honest debate with a vote at the end.

I am distressed about what is happening in Kosovo. I am certainly supportive of the motion before us today. I believe we should be solving problems like this one with debates and votes. We should not be solving such problems with bullets, body bags and bombs. I know that is the dilemma we face. We have President Milosevic who is hell-bent on promoting this conflict.

Having had family at the brunt end of such dictators and such people who do not value the lives of others, I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are now being forced out of their homes and out of their country. That is exactly what happened to my family a scant 70 years ago. I remember as a youngster hearing my family members, my grandparents and others, talking about it. It is totally distressing.

When I heard of these people and the atrocities to which they were subjected, my first reaction was just like that of everyone else's. What can we do to stop this killing? What can we do to stop this ethnic cleansing, as it is called?

I really think that is a misnomer. Somehow it makes the word clean become a dirty word. I wish we could come up with something better in the English language to describe it. It is devastating and dreadful. Surely it would be good if we could persuade that president to stop this and to engage in negotiations, as we would all love to see.

What do we do with a person who says “I am not talking; we have decided what we are doing and we are just going to go ahead with it?” Does one then put the force of war and attack into his face and have him face the consequences? I suppose that is the only other alternative. In that instance we have to work together with all other countries in the world to protect the lives of the people who are being so unfairly attacked.

My son has spent some time in that part of the world and he had some gruesome stories to tell about some of the atrocities. They were things that we do not like to even talk about because they are so dreadful, things that were being done to women and children.

Again, that is exactly what happened to my family when family members were being attacked. Three of my grandfather's brothers were shot. That is the day that my grandfather said “I think we are going to leave”. They escaped the bullets directly themselves. They got out because of the atrocities that were being committed against their friends and family.

That is what is happening in Kosovo. These people are fleeing a dreadful enemy, a dreadful attacker, a ruthless attacker. I have great sympathy for them.

If I had my druthers, what we would do is provide as much help as we could for those who are fleeing. It should be done in the province of Kosovo. Perhaps our troops could secure a part of the country or make arrangements with neighbouring provinces and provide for those people so that their needs are met.

I do not know if the House can imagine it. We take our amenities of life for granted. My son reported that one of the things that amazed him about that part of the world was how similar it was to ours. The homes looked the same. The streets in the towns and cities looked the same. He said the only difference is when one gets close to the homes one sees that they are riddled with bullet holes.

It is dreadful to think that tomorrow we might be pushed out of our homes. We would no longer have our own beds to sleep in. We would no longer have the facilities and amenities to which we are so accustomed. We would just be out. We would be living in tents, if we were lucky. Otherwise we would be out in the open with an uncertain food supply, an uncertain water supply and no shelter.

Some of them are suffering from illness and injury. I would like to see Canada being the leader. We have a reputation as being peacekeepers and providing for people in a humane fashion. I would like to see Canada up its efforts in this area to make sure those who have escaped the ravages of this attack at least have their immediate physical needs met over there.

I know there are a lot of non-governmental agencies working in the area. I encourage our government to support them because I think they administer that type of assistance in a very efficient way, at least the organizations with which I am familiar. They are there. They are reaching out a hand of friendship and help to those people, and that is what we should be doing.

In the meanwhile we should seriously look at what we can do, as the motion suggests, in forcing the hand of Mr. Milosevic to the table, forcing him by demanding that there be negotiation and that he start to talk about what his plans are and what we can do to work this problem out and stop the atrocities toward people.

Whatever that military procedure, it is much beyond my ability because I am not a military strategist, but I believe something has to be done. I would certainly encourage us to up the ante in terms of a diplomatic approach.