Ken Epp

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are a little off the topic of Bill C-68, which in this parliament of course is the Young Offenders Act. In the previous parliament it was the gun control act. It seems to me rather unfortunate, on behalf of Canadian voters, who sometimes have quite a challenge keeping track of what is happening in this place, to have Bill C-68 refer to two such disparate bills.

I would like to say something to the hon. member from the Progressive Party who just spoke. I really think that instead of arguing with each other we need to start recognizing that we have a serious problem on that side of the House. We have budgetary matters and things that are completely out of control, and spin doctoring to try to communicate to Canadians something quite different from the facts.

We have a justice system which is limping along. It has been five or six years since the Liberals took office in 1993. The reason for this is that the previous Conservative government did not do its job well. That is the reality. As a matter of fact, the Reform Party and perhaps the Bloc were simply what happened when there was a vacuum on behalf of what Canadian people really wanted. They were not getting it from the government.

I wish we could work together and give Canadians the option they so desperately need. We finally have the bill before us but it is inadequate. After five years of dilly dallying in matters of justice it is time to give Canadians what they demand, expect and deserve.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 15th, 1999]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I should not have said those things.

I would like to draw a picture for the House. I was watching not long ago a debate in the United States Congress. One of the nice things is that when members of congress give their speeches they can actually use charts, and they often do. Their speakers go to the front of the chamber, they speak from the podium and beside them they have these big graphs if they are talking about budgets. I wish we could do that here. Having taught mathematics and computing for 31 years, I love the ability to use visuals, because it helps people to understand. However, we cannot use props of any kind here. We cannot display the Canadian flag. We cannot use any props at all. All we can do is gesture with our hands and hopefully communicate in that way.

I will build a graph for hon. members, gesturing with my hands, to show what the Liberal government is communicating to the people versus what the truth is. This is how it is doing it.

When government members brought in this health care budget they said that they should put about $2 billion a year back into the budget. That seemed like a good number. Then somebody in the back room said that in the last five years they had taken out $20 billion and if they put $2 billion back the Canadian people would complain. They would say it is not good enough. Government members had to do better.

One of the gurus in the back row at their meeting said he could solve that by multiplying it by five. However, they did not have that much money to put into the health care budget. According to the guru that did not matter. They would just do it over five years. That way they could multiply it by five and it would be $10 billion instead of $2 billion.

This budget is an annual budget. Every year the Minister of Finance is required by law to stand in this place to declare for Canadians the government's plan of fiscal arrangements for the following year. To enter five years into it is very, very dishonest. It really is. It does not communicate.

I want members to visualize a graph. On the bottom of the graph we have 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, for a total of five years.

In 1999 the government is increasing the payments it is making for the health and social transfer. It is putting in $2 billion. The graph is increased by $2 billion from what it would have been if there were no changes.

It has a plan for the next year, which it has no business even talking about it. It has nothing to do with this year's budget. It is a projection for years two, three, four and five to follow. In the next year there is no change at all, but it is still $2 billion above what it would have been if it had not changed it. Then it is being increased by half a billion. In the next year there is no change and in the next year there is no change.

By putting $2 billion a year into the budget for two years and then increasing that by half a billion in the following year, which is the plan, it adds up all of those payments for five years and says they come to $10.5 billion.

What did the press release say? It said that this is a health care budget, that it will put $10.5 billion into health care. That is garbage. I cannot use that word. It is not accurate. Can I say that? It is not accurate. It is garbage. It is a miscommunication. It tells Canadians “We are doing this” when in fact they are doing that. It is a deceptive way of communicating with the Canadian people.

Part of Bill C-71 concerns the implementation of the money. The government wants everybody to believe that it is doing so great and that it is so wonderful. It just ain't so.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House to represent the electors of Elk Island on this important matter of budget, taxes, debt and spending; all of the things this government just cannot seem to get right.

I was intrigued with the member who just spoke. His remarks certainly underline the fact that the last person considered is the poor, long-suffering, bedraggled taxpayer who is every year dragged to pay his taxes, which are forced from him whether he likes it or not. The total level of taxation in this country is so high that it is really very discouraging.

We have heard a number of different presentations. On the weekend I was at a trade fair at Sherwood Park. I was there all day, from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, and from 3 p.m. until 9 p.m. on Friday. There was an endless stream of people who walked by in probably one of Alberta's, and maybe even Canada's, best trade fairs, which is right in my riding. The people who came by stopped to talk to their member of parliament. The overriding issue that I heard was “When will we ever get rid of this high level of taxation?” People are depressed by it. If the people are depressed, there is no doubt the economy is depressed as well.

The second issue that I hear is that there is waste and mismanagement in the system while our health care system is suffering. I am going to get right to Bill C-71. I know the parliamentary secretary, with all of the other 153 Liberals present in the House, is terribly concerned that the health care system should be fixed.

We will soon vote on Bill C-72, which will implement certain measures of the budget from last year, actually making law the things that citizens are already required to do by the department in filing their taxes this year. That is a digression. I will return to Bill C-71, which is the bill to implement this year's budget.

One of the things that this budget and this bill does is to authorize the payment of some $3.5 billion for last year's budget. There is not a business in this country that could get away with that in terms of trying to get rid of taxes. Canadian taxpayers, individuals, small business people and large businesses should all have the ability to average out over the years. That system has really been eroded. We do not see the Liberal government addressing that question, the question of averaging over the last number of years. However, the government does it, even though the auditor general says it is not permitted. The government has loaded $3.5 billion from this year on to last year's budget so that it does not have to account for the surplus, so it does not have to give Canadian taxpayers the tax cut which they so rightly deserve.

Eventually that money will find its way into the health care system. I suppose if I wanted to search deeply for something to commend this government for I would commend it for this health care budget. Members may be surprised at that. How could I, as a Reformer, commend the government for this?

It is like the day I was being robbed. The guy was beating me with a stick. He went through my wallet and then he beat me up like crazy. In the end I thanked him. He asked why I thanked him and I told him I was grateful because he did not take the $20 that he did not find in my back pocket. That is what the government is doing. It has taken some $21 billion out of the health and social transfer and it is putting a little back, so we are thanking the government for putting a little back. Of course everybody knows it is not anywhere near what it has taken out.

Mr. Speaker, I warn you to pay close attention because you may want to call me on being unparliamentary. I know that I cannot use terms like deliberately deceive. I cannot call members liars. I cannot use any of those words.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest. I think the hon. accountant has his numbers wrong. It is quite clear if we look at the actual numbers that the amount being restored is considerably less than the level before the Liberals took over in 1993. There was a substantial cut.

For the hon. member and his colleagues to continually rip into Harris in Ontario and Klein in Alberta for cutting health care is like whipping a guy because he is running in a race and his leg has just been cut off. They think that whipping him will make him run faster. It just does not work that way.

Originally the federal government financed health care to the tune of 50% of expenses. It has been cutting back, cutting back and cutting back. That happened under the Conservatives and it has been greatly increased under the Liberals. The fact of the matter is that while the government is still continuing to tax us more and more and more, it is giving back less and less and less to the provinces. The poor provinces with limited funds just do not have the money to put into health care.

If we take a province like Alberta, for example—and it is the same in Ontario—the actual component of what the province has put into health care has increased in the same length of time as the government was cutting its funding for health care. Then the federal government turns around and blames the provinces. It is unjust. Let the hon. member try to defend that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of working on the finance committee with the hon. member. It is always fun to get into the debates and ask questions of witnesses when they come to our committee. I have a couple of questions for the hon. member.

She talked a little bit about this new federalism. The Prime Minister and the health minister with the collusion of the finance minister have altered our Constitution. By using the federal spending power, they have basically held a club over the heads of the premiers of the provinces and have thereby intruded into what is constitutionally a provincial jurisdiction.

Even though I say this somewhat reluctantly, I think it was probably only the premier of Quebec who had—what do you call it in French—the chutzpah to stand up against what the government is saying. Of course, Quebec got the money anyway so it did not really matter. The other premiers did not do this.

I have quite a concern about the federal government taxing the dickens out of us. We are overtaxed and we are talking here today about the budget. We are taxed like anything. Most families have noticed the tax pressure. The provinces have reduced tax room because of this. The federal government by taking all this money from us, really backs the provinces into a corner in terms of economic freedom of what they can do to manage the health care system. Then this government turns around and says “Okay, we are going to give you some of your money back but the condition is that it must be used only for health”. That is a straight violation of the Constitution of Canada. Most constitutional experts say that.

While I certainly share the concern of the member with respect to health and the funding of health, we know that this government by its reduction of the transfers to the provinces over the last number of years has made a substantial negative impact on the reduction of health care services for Canadians. The Liberals are now gingerly giving a little bit of it back and they say that is helping while at the same time they are breaking the Constitution.

I would sure like to hear the comments of the member on that particular subject.

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which is very important to Canadian people. It has been one that has consumed me in my parliamentary life since I was elected in 1993.

Some hon. members here are new, so they may not know that in the previous parliament I was the Reform Party member on the special joint committee which studied a code of ethics for senators and members of parliament. Of course, as we all know, members of parliament include senators. We are all included in the term. I had the extraordinary privilege of serving on that committee.

Needless to say, it is another of those issues which is not black and white. It is not a simple issue. It is a very complicated issue in terms of what it is that we require public officers, cabinet ministers and, indeed, even ordinary members of parliament to disclose. Generally, the principle, in my view, is that there should be no hidden features of one's life.

I remember when I was a young man and my wife and I moved into a little town in Alberta. There were some 200 people in that town and some people said to me “How can you stand to live in that little town? Everybody knows what you are doing”. I said “I don't plan on doing anything bad, so it doesn't matter”.

That really is the essence of it. Generally speaking, people only want to have secrets if they are going to do something bad.

However, I am aware that there are exceptions. When people have business dealings, for example, sometimes there are things they do not want their competitors to know. That is valid. However, we have a rule in this country that members of parliament who become cabinet ministers have a higher code. They must divest themselves of their interests. They may not directly deal with government.

We have had a couple of issues with the Liberal government since 1993 which have consumed us and have really put into question the whole integrity of it. We have had a few issues lately with the Prime Minister himself.

I remember in the previous parliament a situation where there was an inappropriate use of a credit card by a cabinet minister. That puzzled me endlessly. If a person has credit card statements which prove that what they did was not wrong, why would they not disclose them?

We asked for them under access to information and they were denied. In fact, they were not denied. We got pages and pages of blank paper. The heading was at the top and then everything was whited out. Then there was a little code that said we could not have the information because it was personal.

That was the point exactly. A public credit card was being used for personal reasons, but we could not find out the details. It was really very bad.

It seems to me that one would be eager to disclose. That is what I said to reporters at the time because I was grilled on this. I said that the easiest thing in the world would be to simply bring out all of the statements. They are all on record. Bring them out and make copies of them. Show the reporters the originals. Let them have a copy of them. Here it is. There is nothing wrong. But as long as they are not disclosed, then the suspicion remains and there are all kinds of protestations.

They went through this motion of tabling stuff in the House. When we looked at what they tabled, it had no relevance at all to the question. It was just a snow job, if you will pardon the expression.

Now we have the question about the Prime Minister's code of ethics for his ministers. This is a very important issue. We know that it exists. We know that we have not seen it. It is not the public office holders' code, which is public. The reason we know that is because in the debate with the Prime Minister over this issue at various times he has said “My ministers have seen it. They have read it. They understand it. They obey it”.

One cannot read nor understand that which does not exist. So we know that it exists. There was also a very clear indication that it was not just simply the public office holders' code.

What this motion for the production of papers calls for is simply that the code be made public. For the life of me, I do not know why anybody on this side of the House, whose job it is to hold the government accountable, would be against this motion. Of course we want to know what that code is.

I would think that every Liberal member on the other side who really believes in the Liberal red book and its promises to increase integrity in government would also want to vote in favour of this motion. Of course they would want to have openness in government. They would want the people of Canada to know what the rules of engagement are for ministers of the crown. That is an essential part of rebuilding the trust of government.

We have had some 30 years of Liberal and Conservative governments where the integrity of government has been questioned by Canadians. That is why there is so much cynicism. I think that is one of the reasons less than 50% of the people turned out in the recent byelection. They are so cynical that they say “What difference does it make?” It is time we restored to Canadians faith, trust and confidence in the integrity of the Canadian government.

I urge all members on both sides of the House to vote in favour of this most important motion. It is probably one of the most important motions that we will debate this evening.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just as a follow up, it is not that the Reformers feed on alienation. Wrong. Just stop to think. Had the Liberals and the Conservatives before them and the Liberals before them done a decent job for Quebec, had they done a decent job for western Canada, there would be no Bloc party, there would be no Reform Party.

How could we possibly have told the people to vote for us because we are going to do for them something they were already happy with? Why would they switch their allegiance? On the other hand, if we came up with something that they are not happy with, they would most certainly stay with the party that they had been supporting and would not support a new one.

The new party is not a cause of the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. As far as I am concerned, those members are missing the point.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech that was just given and I am somewhat puzzled.

In a province like Alberta the Liberals had very little support in the last election. All of these programs which the Liberals like to crow about really do not deliver that much support.

I recommend to the Liberal members that they listen to Canadians. I guess we are all guilty of this to a degree. I think it is human nature. We tend to see things, read things and interpret them based on our own experience and our own predisposition to what we believe is true. That is one of the foibles of human nature.

If the Liberal members really listened, they would find that people in western Canada, and this is probably true across the country, want fewer programs and less government interference in their lives. We want the government to give us freedom.

The government does not know how offended people in western Canada and in the prairie provinces are when there is a distant government in Ottawa with an Ontario majority. Ontarians are not subject to the rules of the wheat board act but the government imposes a wheat board on western farmers. It takes away their total freedom and forces them to sell their grain through that one agency when what they want is freedom.

When the government puts a referendum out with two options, neither of which is their first option and then claims that they have listened to the people, that is the stuff of which alienation is made.

I would like to hear the response of the member to that kind of thing, the programs and just not listening to the people.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I really would like to have a good one on one with the member. He spoke about alienation and that the Reform Party has alienated the country, which is absolutely silly. As a matter of fact if it had not been for his party and the degree to which it alienated Canadians, there would be no Reform Party. If the Progressive Conservatives had not created the vacuum, there would be no vacuum to fill. Really, they are experts in alienation.

Today we are trying to bring to parliament the concerns of people across the entire country. I would hope the member would use this occasion to enter the debate by showing us the concerns from his part of the country and from his constituency. In my riding around 60% of the people voted for me. The reason they did is because of the fact that we have promised, and this is true for candidates in our party right across the country, to represent the riding. What is it in the member's riding which causes people to feel alienated from Ottawa? That is the real question we should ask.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague. Is he my colleague? No, he is a member of the Bloc.

I listened to the comments of my fellow parliamentarian with care. I am sure he has been agonizing over the same question I have. If people are peace loving and do not attack each other, there is no need for restraint and no need for people to go in with guns and try to hold a person back.

What do we do with a person, as we have in this situation, who seems hell-bent on destroying other people's lives? What do we do to stop him? Basically it is replacing one war with another, but the general tone of his speech was that he would like to pull out of there and not do anything. Then the atrocities would continue. I would like to have him respond to my comments.