Ken Epp

[Canada Post, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday my question regarding the Pérez affair was brushed off because it was deemed to be a matter of the previous administration.

We must remember that this involves two individuals who are currently members of the other place as well as the president and chairman of Canada Post so the issue is very current.

The government promised openness and honesty. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Prime Minister would not ask the ethics commissioner to clear the air. Why will he not?

[Canada Post, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious allegation. It calls for immediate action. Within weeks of winning this lucrative Canada Post contract, the developer, Mr. José Perez, was billed $59,000 to finance the racing career of the son of the Canada Post chairman. At the same time, the Liberal senator was billing Mr. Perez $60,000 per year for business advice.

I ask again. Will the Prime Minister undertake to ask the ethics counsellor to investigate, give a full accounting to the House and open up these allegations?

[Canada Post, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Recently some very serious allegations concerning possible conflict of interest in the post office have come to our attention. It seems that a Liberal senator and the chairman and president of Canada Post are closely linked to the Ottawa developer who built the new Canada Post building.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the ethics counsellor to investigate this very serious issue.

[Divorce Act, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue my speech. It is the first time that I have had 108 days to contemplate the next sentence in the middle of a speech. I shall carry on. I am not going to waste my time.

We are dealing with a very important matter. It is very important to recognize we are dealing with the lives of real people. Quite often in this place we can sink into a way of thinking and we forget the people behind the rules and laws we are passing.

It is the same when we deal with a budget. The budget affects real people. This is another bill that does the same. It is a bill that deeply affects the lives of people, grandparents in particular but also grandchildren. It also affects the parents.

When I was contemplating what to say next, I decided I would try to put a human face on my remarks. I want to share the importance of the legislation before us concerning the rights of grandparents to have input into the lives of their children's children. Nothing is more precious than this.

I would like to share correspondence I received on this subject. I received a very moving letter after I had participated in the debate last November 25. This letter came from people in Ontario who told a story of how they have been separated from their grandchildren. They simply asked for a measure that will safeguard the vital connection and relationship between grandchildren and grandparents.

We live in a age in which many people are disconnected. Many young people, many children have had their roots ripped away from them for one reason or another. The connection to grandparents is a very important connective root for these people.

This lady said: "For us it is over three years since we have heard from our only grandchildren". I read this letter several days after receiving it. Just as many MPs do, I work on correspondence in the evening and I answered this letter quite late at night. This is what I said: "I am sitting here at 10.25 p.m. miles away from my wife and son in Alberta, my daughter, son-in-law and only grandson in Saskatchewan and half way around the world from another son and daughter-in-law in Rwanda. When I read your letter I detected the pain you must feel. I cannot imagine the hurt you feel when you cannot talk to, cannot touch, cannot hug and spoil your own grandchildren. My family is so precious to me and I am sure that you feel the same about yours". I really felt the pain that evening because the story so touched my heart.

When we contemplate legislation that will grant grandparents reasonable and fair access to their grandchildren, there can be no reasonable doubt in the minds of parents or of the courts, if they are involved, that there is anything detrimental to the children, but only favourable to the children, we then proceed to provide this.

Many people across the country are watching this on television right now. Certainly here in the House we have observers that have been touched by this issue. It is incumbent on us as legislators to do all we can.

I received another letter from this lady after Christmas. She said: "Nothing new has happened regarding news from or about our grandchildren. It was our fourth Christmas of not hearing, despite our sending cards and letters, even by registered mail. We feel so helpless in all this". This is the crux of the matter. There is a helplessness and nowhere to turn for assistance.

We are not asking for anything in this legislation that will be a great hardship on anyone. We are asking for legislation that will grant a point of connection between children and grandparents.

I cannot help but relate this to my own situation. I really cannot tell members how much I really love my little grandson. I might as well tell the whole world that he will soon be having a little brother or sister. It is such a tremendously touching experience for us. We are so privileged to have a wonderful, loving relationship between our children, our son-in-law and our grandchild.

I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone would put a barrier between children and their grandparents. Therefore we are not dealing here with people who have a normal relationship. That is true for probably 95 per cent of people whose relationships are not torn. As in almost all legislation, we are trying to introduce measures that will accommodate those people where a relationship is broken and there has to be some kind of intervention.

We are asking all members of the House to support the bill. In this way people who cannot reach out and touch and hug their grandchildren will be given at least occasionally the privilege of doing so. We are asking that those parents who would stand between their children and the grandparents to carefully think about what they are doing when they introduce these barriers.

Barring a response from parents we need legislation that would require them to give to some disinterested party, like a court if necessary, their reasons. If there is a valid reason for maintaining the barrier I am sure that the courts would understand. If there is not a valid reason then we believe it is in the best interests of children and grandparents to be able to see each other, to talk to each other, to send and receive letters, to send and receive phone calls in order for them to be able to communicate and to build on their relationship.

In conclusion, we have so many young people in our society who are anchorless. They have had so many disruptions in their lives. Nothing is more solid than a familial relationship between children and parents, between children and grandparents that will give them, on an ongoing basis, a sense of security and belonging.

I urge all members to support the bill. Let us do what is right for the children of our country.

[Pensions, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have another example of a soft target in the much touted Liberal red book where it calls for minimal, no pain adjustments to the MP pension plan.

The government has now come up with a two-tiered plan which protects the old cronies of the Liberal caucus, just like the old cronies of the Conservative Party were coddled before.

While announcing a review of the pensions given to Canada's seniors, these fat cats are making sure that their gold-plated, over-rich, taxpayer super-subsidized pensions are kept intact. While all other Canadians are being asked to accept cutbacks and layoffs, Liberals like the Deputy Prime Minister will collect up to $2.7 million in their own special unemployment insurance fund.

Mr. Speaker, you will note that the Liberals have even failed to meet their soft red book target because of the whining and crying of these Liberals. What I really wanted to call them would probably be unparliamentary.

Canadians deserve better. It is time to end-

[Petitions, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by approximately 3,400 people, mostly from the riding of Elk Island.

I understand that this is part of a larger petition which will total some 64,000 names.

The petitioners express a serious concern about and call for changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to make them serious enough to deter young people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide for real justice.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's speech. He certainly gives a good perspective.

We are concerned about the people of Canada. The real response to his intervention is not whether we want to look after the people but rather how to do it. The question arises: Is it good for jobs in the country to have the government spend 50 per cent of our money?

To me the answer is obviously no. It would be much better for the government to spend less of our money and to allow individuals to promote and improve themselves in job situations because the private enterprise system is working much better. That is one of our main points of debate.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary a very difficult question. He may choose to talk around it instead of answering it, in which case I will assume that either he does not want to answer it because it is embarrassing to him to be on that side of the House and to answer it, or he may be equivocating and does not know. I do not know what he will say. However if he chooses to answer I would be very pleased.

The item of debate today is whether the 3 per cent of GDP is an adequate target. I am really quite convinced that it would be best if we eliminated deficit spending and stopped putting the government and the people more and more into debt.

Is 3 per cent an adequate target? Yes or no.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, sure the people are feeling happy. Do they have the correct information? Do they know what deep trouble we are in? Perhaps the government of the day with its be happy, don't worry attitude is convincing them of it but hiding from them the bitter truth of what is going to happen.

The government has stated as its goal to bring the deficit down to $25 billion. That is a cut of $15 billion from the present deficit of $40 billion. Where are there cuts of $15 billion? I have not heard one of them. It is worry about one million here and one million there. That is important but it does not begin to touch the big question.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we can have this debate. The Liberal government has a point of view and the Reformers have a point of view on how the finances of the country ought to be run. I hope that the people of Canada are paying very close attention because literally their future depends on it.

I did a little mathematical extrapolation. When I first started this process it was 1992. The federal debt was about $420 billion and now it is around $550 billion, an average of around 9 per cent per year. At that rate, the debt would grow to over $600 billion by the year 2000.

Interest payments would increase from $33 billion in 1992 to over $50 billion in the year 2000. That $50 billion is not available for education, is not available for health, is not available for any of the social programs or anything else.

I want to ask the member who just made the speech a question. We recognize if we do not cut spending that the debt will continue to grow. In fact, the deficit needs to be cut to zero so that we can start attacking the debt which is growing every day by $110 million.

We have to do something. Does the government have any plans at all, and if so, where is it going to get the money? The $40 billion deficit is about equal to our $40 billion interest payment. Are we going to default on our interest payments? I am sure the member would say no.

Are we going to take money out of running the government? That costs around $40 billion per year. It would mean shutting government down completely. That would balance the budget. I am sure he would say no. Let us keep at least some of it going.

What is left then are transfers payments to the provinces. To say that the budget can be balanced and bring the financial situation under control without doing that, I submit, is not

facing the facts squarely. It is being very unrealistic. I think it is giving the people of Canada a false sense of security.

I would like the to member to respond on where he would actually cut.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for identifying a very real problem in our Constitution. We have a real anomaly. If we were to be honest we would have to say a constitutional change is in order.

If Canada's population remains constant but Quebec's population goes down, we need more members in the House of Commons for that reason, by our present rules. That does not make sense in anybody's thinking. Therefore we do need to have a change in this regard. There ought to be a formula that recognizes geography, the area of a constituency, because it is a very real factor in any area away from the more densely populated areas.

The member who just spoke was right on the button when he said that we need to change the rules so it is possible for an MP to do his work. As far as the numbers are concerned, I think Canadians would have no trouble at all with supporting their members of Parliament.