Ken Epp

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to begin the debate this week in this exciting new Parliament with a new government that has a forward looking vision for the country and not a backward looking one like the Liberals of the past.

I might also mention in passing that I may hold the record for the longest interrupted speech. I do not remember which Parliament it was or the exact dates but I recall being in the middle of a speech when the end of the day came and my speech was resumed just a few days less than a year later. I began that speech by saying, “When I was interrupted, this is what I was saying”.

I do not think I will have time to review everything I was saying last Friday but I was talking about families and the fact that the government has a vision and recognition that parents make the best choices for their children. I put forward the proposition that the best caregivers in the world are the mothers and fathers of children, which is what we are promoting with our budget and policies.

I had the privilege this past weekend of attending several functions but the one that touched my heart the most was a bicycle and run fundraiser for people with cerebral palsy. This touched my heart because it reminded me so much of my sister who had cerebral palsy and spent her whole life without ever being able to speak. She was totally dependent and lived for 55 years. She passed away six year ago. It was a wonderful privilege to be with these people who are raising money to look after family needs.

This budget has exactly the same vision. We need to do a better job than the Liberals have ever done in providing for families who have these special needs. I do not think people who have not experienced it have any idea of either the mental or emotional pressures or the financial pressures on families that have members with disabilities and need total care.

In this budget I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had the foresight and wisdom to increase the maximum annual child disability benefit from $2,044 to $2,300 effective July 1. That is one of many good things in this bill. I urge all members in the House, whether they are for the government or against it is irrelevant as long as they want good things, to support the budget implementation bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Just listen to the master math teacher for a few milliseconds, if I may suggest.

How much money is this? I will take $35,000 as an example. The $35,000 at 15.5% is equal to $5,425. It is curious that if we were to charge a rate of 15%, we would come up with exactly the same number if the taxable income is $36,167, which is about what it would have been under the Liberal plan. It is actually fairly close.

All of the individuals earning income and paying income tax under our plan have an additional $1,000 that they can earn tax free because of the benefit for employment. We have now another $1,000 that we are not paying tax on at all. Zero.

As a result, the 15.5% on the amount that is remaining is actually less tax than if we paid 15% on the larger amount. All they have to do is to put on their math caps for a second and let it sink in. That is how it works. One number is not bigger than the other because of the tax rate. It is actually smaller because of the fact that we are paying on a lesser amount. When one adds to this the fact that this will benefit all families, this is a tremendous thing.

I am a little older now and I do not know whether I should announce it to everyone, but it was just yesterday that I turned 67. It is a long time since we had young children running around the house, but I still remember when my wife and I decided that she would be a full time mom. We decided that the best care for our children was parental care. In order to accommodate that choice, I had to take on the teaching of some night classes in order to pay my taxes.

In order to live on my income alone, we made sacrifices to make that happen because it was important, but there was no recognition for it to speak of in the tax act. We just made the sacrifice with after tax dollars.

I took on teaching a night class at NAIT, where I worked, in order to supplement our income so we could pay our bills. I used to tell people that on Tuesday nights I was working for Trudeau. On Thursday nights I was working for my family. That is because about half of my incremental income went to taxes, so not only did we have the loss of my wife's income because she was a full time mom, we also had a penalty because when I did that extra work, I had to pay tax at the higher rate.

I am so happy to be a part of a political party that looks at the value of a tax system for families and is saying that it will allow those families to make a real choice. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the absolute best child care that children can get in those early formative years is the care of mom and dad. There is no doubt about that. There is a lot of data available if we were to look for it, in fact it is available, that proves that to be true.

Mr. Speaker, I can read body language. I taught for 31 years. When I see somebody sitting like this, I know he is ready to go, so I will now interrupt my speech and hope to continue it at the next sitting.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow.

I suppose those members who have been here longer have noticed that my number of interventions in the House has really decreased in the last year and a half or two years. It used to be that I was up all the time on everything.

I was asked the other day why I have turned really quiet. I responded by saying that we are now surrounded by very capable new members. I just feel I do not want to dominate the proceedings. I want to give them a chance to develop their debating skills as well and they are doing just fine.

My hon. colleague from Palliser has done us proud in the last little while, and I really appreciate that. It is such an honour to be here with all of these good quality, highly principled people who want to do what is good for this country.

As members know I taught math for many years. One of the things that really disturbs me is the lack of mathematical knowledge by the members on the other side. Somehow they cannot get it into their heads that when they compare two numbers, and most of us would look at it and say this number is less than that one, they call it a tax increase. They are just out of it. What they are failing to take into account is the fact that the income tax rate on the lowest category is 16%. The update that provided for that to be reduced has never been passed by this Parliament.

The fact of the matter is that even though the Liberals say that they did this and it was announced in their budget, it has never had the approval of Parliament. They cannot say that the tax rate has been increased.

Even if the tax rate had been increased and let me take that stance just for their benefit for a few milliseconds. Let us say that 15% would have been approved and it would be in place, we are talking about 15.5% now. My question to the members opposite is very simple, who instead of listening keep heckling here.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House knows how reluctant I am to rise on points of order, but the Standing Orders explicitly state that one cannot cast aspersions or imply the dishonesty of other members. By the words the member is using, he is doing that to our Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should at minimum ask him to desist, or at least you should ask him to withdraw the previous words and get on with a proper debate on the budget bill.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest when I hear the Liberals over there say that they left this government in such a good fiscal state.

The fact is that the debt the country struggled with for nine years under the Conservative government was in fact Liberal debt. That is just a plain fact. All we need do is to look back at the history of when those huge deficits started. Who was the finance minister who really pushed that? It was Mr. Chrétien.

The fact is that it was just simple compound interest growth and Conservative policies that gave the government the capacity to finally address the issue. Unfortunately, the Liberals came to power after that and they squandered the money. The debt is almost $500 billion. If we would have had a Conservative government along the way with fiscal policies, that debt would probably now be $400 billion instead of $500 billion. The Liberals squandered it all over the place.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded that the member would begin the debate on this beautiful Monday morning by being so shy on facts. The observations that he declared about our budget and throne speech are just the opposite of what is actually contained in those documents.

We had many years of Liberal government where the Liberals had a long list of commitments just to try to persuade Canadians to vote for them. Did they fulfill those commitments? Did they keep those promises? No, they did not.

In contrast, during the campaign, in our throne speech and in the budget, our party focused on the main priorities. It is really so novel. I talked to several people who said that it was unique for a new government to actually, as its first action, implement the things it ran on in the election.

I must challenge the member's statements and invite him to rethink what he said with respect to the evaluation he gave of this government and of the budget.

[Petitions, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand in the House to present a petition that came mostly from University of Alberta students, which is, I might just parenthetically, probably the best university in the whole country, and also a number of others.

The petitioners presented this issue to me with a lot of passion. It is the issue of the international trade in firearms, ammunition and other devices that are used to inflict pain and suffering on a lot of innocent people.

The petitioners would like to have the House of Commons reform the law to restrict the international movement of firearms and other things related to that. Particularly, they are eager that we have a permanent licence application process that includes a more rigorous analysis on the impact of the trading on human rights.

I am very honoured to present that petition on their behalf to day.

[Chernobyl, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is now 20 years since the devastating Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Last week, there was another report on the continuing dangers to health caused by the radiation from this event. All reports so far have consistently indicated ongoing uncertainty about the long term health effects due to this disaster.

My question is for the minister. On the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, what is Canada doing to mitigate the long term effects of radiation?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals talk about the current government's approach to native issues they so totally misrepresent what we stand for that I am really disappointed in it. It just does not serve the dignity of the House or the government of the country.

The fact is that no one has a monopoly on compassion and care for other people in our society. We in our party are very dedicated and committed to doing what is best for our first nations people in the long run. However that does not mean that we immediately jump into some deal that has been struck by the previous government. We are now the government and we will investigate. We will see what has been done, what needs to be done and we shall do it with the greatest dispatch. I really wish that members opposite would stop mischaracterizing our view on these issues.

[Government Accountability, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast sent a message on January 23 that they wanted an end to the 12 and one-half long years of Liberal waste and mismanagement.

The Conservative Party has promised to implement the federal accountability act to end the Liberal culture of entitlement.

Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House if the government will meet its campaign commitments on accountability, and when can we expect the government to act?