Ken Epp

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but do I not have an opportunity now to speak since there has been an amendment to my motion?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, December 13th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-52, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 3, the following: a ) refrain, where possible, from engaging in activities for or on behalf of any government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere that are in direct competition with private corporations, firms or organizations; b ) ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and other information is complete and easily accessible; c ) ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and competently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars; d ) ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in the operations of the Department;''.

Mr. Speaker, I begin my little speech about the motion to amend by saying that it has been a very frustrating experience to go through Bill C-52.

We are told it is a routine bill, one that has as its purpose to simply bring together a few departments into one. Actually it is an action that was done by the previous government and is now being rubber stamped by this one.

While we were told in committee to hurry, hurry, hurry and were not even allowed to listen to witnesses in some cases because we were in such a hurry, the message was obviously hurry up and wait. That was over a month ago. The bill has been on the Order Paper four times and now finally we are here.

I want to speak to the motion in amendment. First, this motion to amend standing alone is not very meaningful. We have to start by listening to the first part of clause 7 which states:

In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister shall

We are now suggesting that some four clauses be inserted on things the minister shall do. I must speak briefly about the process. In my little more than one year as a member of Parliament I have discovered that as government backbenchers or opposition members the only way we have any hope of changing anything is to persuade the minister to give the instruction that it should be changed.

However it is very difficult to persuade the minister if the minister will not hear. The only way to get the minister to hear is perhaps if we could ask Liberal members who are listening to hear the quality of the argument, to assess it and then to decide that perhaps these are well founded amendments that should be supported. If those members will then twist the arm of the minister so that he will give instructions on how the party will vote, the amendment will pass. If he does not do that then I speak here in vain.

Here are the arguments. The first paragraph states: "refrain, where possible, from engaging in activities in direct competition with private corporations". I want members of the House to know that my party and I have received a number of representations from individuals, groups and small businesses with grave concerns about the government entering into competition.

There is one kind of competition we welcome in terms of government. If an arm of the government has to compete with private enterprise where private enterprise has shown that it can do things more efficiently, we think the taxpayer gets the best break if the private organization will do the work at a lower cost to taxpayers. Very often when government gets into a position of competing with private enterprise it has a totally unfair monopolistic advantage.

The reason we are supporting this group of four amendments is that we want to ensure that business thrives and indeed survives. At least 80 per cent of the economic activity of the country is derived from small business. To ask these businesses to pay taxes that are used to provide financial backing to the government firm or the government agency to compete and undercut prices is a violation of a fundamental principle of justice and the principle of what is right.

Some may wonder about the wording because we have said: "refrain, where possible". It is because I am a bit of a realist and somewhat pragmatic. I realize the probability of the motion being passed would essentially disappear totally if we made the motion hard and effective the way it ought to be.

We want at least to insert into the bill the requirement that the minister "refrain, where possible". I do not know how he could determine this. There would be times when he would say it is not possible. I suppose that would be subject to debate and perhaps even a court investigation to see whether he was living up to the terms of this clause in the bill. The important point is that the minister would be given the directive to stay out of competing with private enterprise.

The second paragraph indicates that the minister is to "ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and other information is complete and easily accessible". One problem with the way government does business is in the area of questioning backroom deals. If we accept the integrity of the Liberal government, it has said in its campaign literature and has kept on saying that it wants honesty, openness and integrity. It would provide the minister with the ability to provide openness according to the standards of the governing party, according to its words. We are saying "ensure, where possible" so that it does not come in so hard that they say they are going to throw out the amendment of this renegade third party guy.

We want them to consider it seriously. That is why it has this little softening phrase.

The third motion is that the minister shall ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and compe-

tently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars. This is the missing ingredient in Bill C-52.

The overriding concern of Canadians from sea to sea is that we are not being responsible with their tax dollars. We need to build into legislation the necessity of being frugal, of saving money, of cutting expenses, of balancing the budget, getting rid of the deficit.

Canadians are demanding this. One way of achieving it is to require the ministers to actually maintain as a priority the efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in performing these services.

In the last several days we have received the report of the committee that was studying the Canada Communication Group. I am intrigued in reading that report to find that this independent review committee has suggested very strongly that Canada Communication Group, which as most people know does all the printing for the government, among other things, should be privatized. It should be sold to private interests so that when government has a contract to let, everybody out there is on an equal playing field. It is critical that we listen to that report. This motion aids that.

The fourth subgroup in Motion No. 1 is that the minister shall ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in the operations of the department.

In other words, this amendment would require that the minister pay some attention to the reduction of costs. We in the public works and government operations committee could then ask him to be accountable when he comes before the committee.

We could say to the minister: Mr. Minister, how did you express cost cutting efficiency as a high priority? From minister to minister we can insist that there be measures taken to be totally efficient.

In conclusion, the four points in the motion, if given careful thought, are very reasonable. I urge all members to support these amendments, not because I have asked them to, although obviously I agree or I would not have proposed the motion. I do not urge them to support them because the Reform Party supports them. If they did so, partisanship would enter and they would automatically oppose the motion. I urge those members to consider supporting this motion strictly and totally because it best represents the needs and the aspirations of Canadians who are footing the bill.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The words just used characterizing the Reform Party are not parliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw them.

[Divorce Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand in support of my hon. colleague's bill. I have a leg up on the hon. member who just spoke because I already am a grandfather.

I put this all into perspective. It is a great privilege to be part of a family. When I think of the influence my parents have had on our children and indeed the influence my grandparents had on

me, I think that we greatly err if we do not do everything possible to preserve that familial connection.

I remember when I was a young man leaving home for the first time to go to university in Saskatoon. My parents made a special point of taking me over to my grandparents' place to say goodbye to them. I will never forget that my grandfather, who is long gone now, took the time to pray with me. That was very important to our family. We had an opportunity to pass on those most deeply held values from generation to generation. Our grandparents were of great assistance.

I think also particularly of my children's grandfather, my father-in-law, who was a tremendously strong influence in their lives. He was most influential and was such a solid and loving man.

To a large degree I will speak on behalf of grandfathers. At the beginning of this debate it was our female members who were promoting it which is wonderful. However I do not want people reading this record to think that we men do not care because we do care deeply. I am thinking particularly of my own children and the high esteem in which they held Grandpa Klassen as we called him, my wife's father, and how we all were so close together during that time when he was fighting cancer. He passed away just a little over a year ago. Therefore those are extremely important connections.

I think too of the occasions that we have had in working together with a number of families in recent years who have experienced this devastation of the family breakup. I remember not long ago speaking with the father of a couple, I will not identify them, who were breaking up and how he literally cried when he thought of his grandchildren.

I can only, as forcefully as I can, support this bill and say how important it is for children, for grandfathers as well as for grandmothers. I commend and congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for his speech.

I probably should begin by saying that I restrained myself from rising on a point of order when he used terminology which just yesterday was ruled unparliamentary by the Speaker in referring to us.

I would like to tell hon. members and this member in particular, as emphatically as I can, that we bear absolutely nothing but the very, very best wishes for the people he is representing. It is very unfair, I think, when we begin to debate the issues to degenerate into name calling. I resent that because I do not think it adds to the debate at all.

I would like to ask some very serious questions. First of all, in the government ramming through Bills C-33 and C-34 last June, did it really add to the understanding and the conviviality among different parts of our society? One of the problems is that many people feel that things are being rammed down their throats and they have no real input. We do not have an opportunity as members of Parliament to represent the wishes of all our constituents.

It seems to me that it would have been much better had we taken the time to debate, to allow the Canadian people to have some real input into this and to build a level of understanding and acceptance of the deal that was made. If it really is that good it should be saleable. If it is not saleable then let us fix up the things that are not so that we can understand and accept, and I will even go so far as to say love each other that much more.

With respect to the bill before us today and the building of this board, once again everybody else is disenfranchised. Everybody else has no input. It is just being rammed through. There will be a board but it does not represent the rest of Canadians who are also contributing to the financial bill and who have an interest in that regard and in everything that happens there.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the process in which this is all being done. Could we not do better? I understand and accept that there is some impatience here after 20 years of process and we have to move on. But we need to ask the questions very seriously. What is best in order to build a relationship among all Canadians and how does this process help it when we ram it through like this?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the member in the areas that he has debated, because they were in the book and they are part of the small agenda of the Liberals in revamping this plan, I would like to know whether the member has any affinity at all for making the plan more fair mathematically, more fair from an actuarial point of view.

Is it fair that a person like myself in my previous position should pay into a pension plan for 27 years to get the same benefit that an MP here can get in about six or seven years? There is an element of unfairness there that I think is perceived by the Canadian people right across this country that the growth rate is much too fast, notwithstanding that we contribute probably a higher percentage than they do. At the same time the growth is way out of line.

I would like to know the member's opinion because he seems to be quite in agreement with the need to revamp the pension scheme.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address that question because that is actually one of the aspects of this proposal that bothers me the most.

I know it is good to learn when you are young that when you borrow something you repay it. I remember growing up as a youngster on a farm in Saskatchewan my dad taught me that whenever we borrowed something from a neighbour we always returned it in a condition as good as or better than we borrowed it. That is a good principle but I do not believe it is a good principle to set things up so that young people on graduation have a millstone of debt hanging around their necks.

For example, a young person who has gone through a dental program wants to open a dentist office. He now has to borrow money in order to put up his office, get his equipment. That is true for many different professions, even in my profession of teaching. We need to have computer equipment and things like that, depending on what area we are in.

Some of us on graduation get married. We set up a home. We need to borrow money for the home. We need to borrow money for the downpayment for the car and for the furniture. The first thing you know, you are up to your ears in debt just like this government is up to its ears in debt and you are totally debilitated by it.

I really think it would be much healthier for our whole society if our students could graduate debt free. That really is the very best. It is not that one is a nine and the other is an eight. I really think that one is a 10 and the other is a zero in this as far as my feeling is concerned.

I know that is idealistic but I think it can happen. In a healthy society where students can get a good summer job and are able to live frugally, I believe they should be able to save enough to pay their living expenses. If we as a society, as taxpayers, pay their tuition directly and have them pay it back through their taxes that would be a superior method.

I want to avoid handing them a millstone of debt with their graduation certificate from university.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments. Actually, I should be worried if I say things that please members on the other side. Maybe I have not done a good job.

With respect to the question of vouchers, I think it would be better for us to take the federal government money that is now allocated for post-secondary education, allocate it entirely through the voucher system and allow the universities to build a tuition system that reflects to a fair degree the cost of educating a student in the program.

The provinces would individually be required to provide the funding for the facilities and for any special developments there since it is a provincial requirement. This way the students would be the ones who would produce a level of good, healthy academic competition between various institutions. They would then have to attract students because of their good record and good quality control program. Their graduates would be able to get the top notch jobs. Through that natural competitiveness those institutions would I think develop a better level of research and a better level of teaching.

The provinces could go ahead and use their money as they are now in their component in the provinces. The voucher system would help to give students a great deal more flexibility in the choice of which institution they attend because of the fact that very often there are universities which specialize in their area.

For example today I was talking to a person who happens to be a member of the chiropractic profession. There are no programs for that particular discipline in all universities. But there are

those that could provide that service and that student would not have to face a great economic disadvantage because it may be out of province.

Those are just some of my comments on that.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was going to be able to further interrogate the member for Victoria-Haliburton, but I guess it is my turn now.

I would like to begin by declaring something we probably all know. Members on this side of the House certainly are aware of it. Members on the other side are becoming aware. We are very happy to notice that in recent days even the Minister of Finance has made public pronouncements admitting that our national debt and ongoing annual deficit are problems and something we must address.

As a matter of fact it is very important for us to remember in all this debate when we are talking about revamping our social programs the objective and one of the very large motivations for us being here is that we need to reconsider the financial picture of the country. We are in trouble. It is a matter of simple realism to recognize that if we do not do something about it external forces will take over and we will have it done for us. If we can do something about it while we still have control that is much to be desired and the highest of several different options.

In keeping with a well known couplet which probably everyone in the House knows, the borrower is a slave to the lender. Our debt with its required interest payments has made us slaves in the sense that we have now lost our freedom to do the things we want to do.

I really think it would be wonderful if we could just simply pick up everyone who does not have a job. I think it would be wonderful if everybody in the whole world could come to Canada to get medical procedures done because we have a wonderful free medicare system for everyone regardless of their ability to pay. I think it would be wonderful if we could offer free education to everyone, young and old alike. I think it would be great if we could say to people who are unemployed: "Don't worry. We will pick up your cost of living. We will pay for your tuition to get retrained. We will help you to get re-established in another workplace". Would that not be great? No one would ever suffer at all. That would be great.

However we do not have that option because of our fiscal situation. Right now for every $4 the government spends $1 is borrowed. We only have income of $3 for every expenditure of $4. A lot of that growth is not even in our control. Just adding the interest payment this year of $40 billion, if we do nothing, will add another $5 billion of interest payments next year because of the interest due on the interest we paid this year and had to borrow the money for. Unless we get a hold of it and get a hold of it fast, we are not going to have the option.

Members opposite love to make wonderful promises. I do too. I cannot help but use an analogy. I have a couple of sons. They are now thankfully grown up or close to it anyway. One of them is still at home because he needs my subsidy to go to school and that is fine. We love him and it is great having him there. I thought I would be considered the world's most wonderful dad if I could say to my boys: "Hey guys, I will buy you each a Corvette". They would just love it. Very frankly they would go around bragging. They would say: "I have the greatest dad in the world. He is going to buy us each a Corvette". It is an empty promise because I do not have financial backing. I do not have the money in the bank to buy two Corvettes to give to my boys. My promise is empty.

It is time the Canadian people woke up to the fact that despite the best promises that governments of the past have made and the present government is making, unless we maintain the fiscal backing that enables us to fulfil the promises, they become empty promises. That is why we must discuss all of our spending realistically, including social spending because it is such a large portion of our total budget.

In the body of my speech I would like to concentrate on the question of education. Since I graduated from university I have been an educator. All of us here have been educated to some degree or another and we have all benefited from receiving an education.

It would not be stretching it at all to recognize that our standard of living is based on education. Our democratic system is based on education. If we did not have a generally educated public we could forget about having votes and debates in public. We could not present things for people to read. If they were not educated and not literate we could only talk to them. We could not appeal to their ability to compute matters to see whether we are reasonable in our projections on the budget and government spending. Our very democracy depends on a generally educated public.

However, I would go beyond that. Without in any way minimizing or marginalizing those people who do get past high school, we also need to acknowledge that our standard of living is greatly dependent on what happens in educational institutions past high school.

I am not in any way minimizing or marginalizing those who for whatever reason do not go beyond high school. I know a number of people in that category and most of them do very well but our standard of living, as I am going to show now, is dependent on what happens afterward.

Think of the basis of much of our standard of living. Think of the things that we enjoy. I guess because of my particular field of study I would first of all thank the mathematicians, since mathematics is the foundation of almost all science, all research and all engineering. Without mathematics and a solid mathematic, analytic ability we really would not have any of the wonderful things that we enjoy in the western world. I extend that to studies in engineering, to research scientists, to medical practitioners, medical researchers. All of these people contribute to what we almost take for granted in our country as a standard of living.

We take it for granted that if we are ill we can go to the hospital for treatment. It goes beyond just having the hospital facility. Unless there are trained doctors and nurses, hospital and medical technicians, respiratory people and all the other specialities and all of the lab technicians, going to the hospital is as useful as going out to the wood shed when you are sick. We have to have qualified, trained people.

It is important for us to make sure that we have not only quality education but quantity education. We need to provide a high degree of quality control in our education right through the years so that when our students graduate whether they are doing surgery on us or are designing our aeroplanes, bridges, or buildings, they will provide a highly reliable, dependable service.

It also has a spin-off in our economic competition in the rest of the world. It is only when we do very well in those areas that we can maintain our standards. We are dependent on people who invent, who design, who plan, who build, who produce, who organize, who maintain and operate equipment, who build and maintain structures and systems. We need people who invent combinations of chemicals and materials to help our agriculture and forestry industries, to help us fight diseases with medicines. We need all of those different aspects, which are the result of education, if we are going to have our standard of living.

We need to have electrical engineers and others, who are capable of learning, developing and inventing new ways of communicating with each other via telecommunications systems, computers and things like that. We need to constantly be on the move forward.

So much for building the case for the need of education. Should we as people collectively, through our tax system fund education? I have said it in the House before. I say it again by way of emphasizing something that has been greatly misunderstood. Many times misinformation has gone out, especially from members opposite, regarding our party. They keep talking about us wanting to cut and slash and do away with everything.

We said during the campaign and we are as deeply committed now as ever to bringing our fiscal House into order so that we can maintain a universal Canada-wide health care system. It is in our policy. We have said it from the beginning. We have always said it, notwithstanding that others have tried to minimize our message.

Based on our very careful analysis of questionnaires of members in our party, which we think is a very good cross-section of the Canadian citizenry, those people have said that health is first and education is second. Here we have two programs. The review that the government has embarked on does not even talk about health care, old age security and some of the things that are so important to Canadians, but we have talked about it.

Those are the items which are of very high priority for Canadians. We are here to do what we can to make it more than an empty promise. I would like to say that investment in education is exactly that. I have already indicated that we benefit as a society and as individuals from the positive spin-offs of having an educated population. I would also like to add that it is a very positive fiscal investment. We can invest our money and actually get a monetary return.

I want to go way beyond what the minister has suggested. In fact it has already been done, as we know, in some previous parliamentary work the government has embarked on and that is to increase the loans to students. I do not think that is the way to go at all. We need to give some positive support to education so that education is within the means of students in their present level of earnings however they earn their money in the summer months when they are on vacation from their studies.

We need to look at it as an investment. Let me give some numbers. I happen to love mathematics. I did a few calculations. It is totally realistic to assume that a person with a university degree, a college degree or a technical institute diploma could earn in some cases $1,000 or more per month as a result of that education.

I am going to take a very modest number. I used to use the word conservative, but that word has now come into disrepute around the country, so I no longer say that. I am going to use a modest number of $400 per month. Let us say that graduate can earn $400 per month more as a result of receiving an education. Let us say that he graduates at age 22 and works to age 62, which is a good 40-year life span of work.

During that time the $400 per month gives him an additional $192,000 of earnings. We all know that in our tax system the marginal rate of taxation is around 50 per cent. Governments right now are clawing back 50 per cent of the result of that added earning. Over the 40-year period that is $96,000. Just educating a student gives back $96,000.

I want to be realistic. Let us think of this as an investment. What is the present value of that, using an 8 per cent interest rate, which is what I used to compute it. Amazingly the present value of every educated student in terms of returned increase income tax collected is $57,238. That is an amazing number. We are quibbling about whether or not we should lend these students $4,800 so that they can go to school and then graduate with a huge personal debt load as well as the collective government debt load we have laid on their shoulders. That is atrocious.

We ought to be looking at more creative ways of funding education. It is a tremendous investment not only for our standard of living but even from a straight fiscal point of view. In the matter of direct income tax collected, it is a tremendous benefit for us all in the economic activity in the country. The more people we have who are educated the greater the economic activity in our country and the greater our exports. We benefit myriads more than just the income tax collected. That is but a very small portion of that investment.

The question that comes next is how do we do this? How do we provide an education system for our students so that it is affordable and we can have all of our students going to school? I agree with the goal that students should not be prevented from going to school because of personal economic hindrances, just as I agree that people should not be prevented from going to a hospital for needed medical care because they do not have the money to pay for it.

It is a downright shame if young people from poor families cannot go to school because they cannot afford it. It is time that we wake up to the fact that we have a responsibility to make sure that education is affordable. That can only be done if we put our fiscal house into order and stop all of the wastage in those many other areas.

I have some suggestions. In the elementary and secondary schools we practise the idea that education should be free. Students generally do not pay tuition. There are some exceptions. Unfortunately in parts of our country some people who choose to send their children to private schools for various personal reasons end up paying extra. They pay tuition. Others, if they attend the public school system or, in some cases, there is a legitimate separate school system in the province, do not pay. That is paid for by the taxpayer.

I have a question. Why would we use that principle up to grade 12, or in Ontario grade 13, and then abandon it for education past that? The only thing I can think of as a legitimate reason would be that past grade 12 further education is a marked financial advantage to the student as well. Not only do we benefit as a society by being able to collect more income tax from them, but they are paying more income tax because they are making more money.

Therefore, it is fair to say that the students should pay for at least a portion of their post-high school education, as it has been for quite some time. However, I do not believe that we should put the whole load, the whole burden of that education on these students, particularly because we know that over the years they will end up paying it back into the system anyway.

Therefore I would like to propose that we give very serious consideration to a system whereby the students would look after their own housing. That is more or less acceptable unless they have to travel to a place away from home. The family should be able to provide for housing. In most instances they can live at home. Where they cannot of course we need to look at ways of

funding that at a reasonable rate, perhaps as part of the particular educational institution.

Second, there are books and supplies. These too I think for the most part could be funded by students through their summer earnings, particularly if we had a good strong economy which would demand that a lot of students be hired in the summer months when they are away from their studies.

My last and most important suggestion is that we would go to a system of vouchers for students which would essentially pay their tuition. I would like to see the student upon graduation from high school get a little certificate as part of his graduation package that says the certificate may be presented to any post-secondary institution in Canada of his choice and it will provide for a payment of 90 per cent of the tuition at that particular institution. I did think of putting in a fixed number. That is another option, but we do recognize that some institutions, some universities and some colleges have different costs because of the kinds of programs they offer.

We know for example that in some of the engineering and some of the physics programs the cost of the equipment is way greater than in some other areas where the costs are mostly in books and libraries. I think to recognize that different programs have a slightly differentiated tuition system that certificate could be used.

It would be a wonderful encouragement to our students to say: "We believe in you. We don't care whether you have rich parents. We are going to see that you have an opportunity for a good education and we are with you all the way. Here is a certificate from us, the taxpayers. We know that you will pay us back. But we put our faith and our trust in you. We want to see you be successful".

Mr. Speaker, my time has come to an end. I really would like to encourage the people on the government side to give serious consideration when they are looking at this aspect of a social program review to do it and, for the sake of our young people and our children, do it well.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our debt is rising at a fantastic rate since this government came into power. Admittedly, some of it would have been the fulfilling of obligations from the previous government. We do not know the number but most likely we have slipped another $40 billion into debt.

I have a question with respect to the speed with which this is coming about. After a year we finally have a discussion paper which we are now supposed to start talking about. Canadians were already talking about it before the last election. By now I would have liked to have seen a good system of cost analysis with options on these different programs so that we could begin making choices and start making the necessary cuts in order to prevent us from sliding into debt so deeply that we will never get out.

I would like the member's comment on the whole question of speed and urgency with respect to this debate that is going on.