Ken Epp

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I used the word progenitor. It has to do with genealogy and genesis, I believe. It seems to me that somewhere in the back of my brain that word was kicking around, bouncing around off the walls, and so I just pulled it out and used it. I am going to look it up myself when I get back. I think it is a word, but he has shattered my absolute confidence and so we will be both checking it out in the dictionary later on today.

If we look at the history of the Statistics Act in Canada, my understanding is that the first act was passed by the House of Commons and the Senate and declared into law in 1918. It required that there be some promise of confidentiality. The panel that studied this at the time said, “We are persuaded that a guarantee of perpetual confidentiality was not intended to apply to the census”.

That was the conclusion and I am not sure that we should put a lot of weight in that, but it goes back a long way. If that was the impression at the time, then I think that we should not try to rewrite history now. That is my answer to that particular question.

I am also sorry that the hon. member did not ask me about the Senate because it is Bill S-18. As a matter of fact, I would like to strengthen the role of the Senate in this country. It could be a great unifying effort. If we were to have a truly elected Senate and one that was equally apportioned across the country, I think that people in the west and in Atlantic Canada would no longer feel so terribly excluded in this country as they are now with Quebec and Ontario each having 24 senators, all of them being appointed by the party of the day. Those things are offensive in a democratic world and we should work as hard as we can, and arrange things so that we can correct that, as our party has tried to do over the last 12 years.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will be supporting this bill because I want it to go to committee. I want to ensure that the committee deals with some of the issues that are in front of us. Certain things have been raised and the committee should deal with them.

Certain amendments should be introduced at committee stage, so that we can deal with those issues, correct this legislation, and ensure that this time we get it right. A hundred years from now citizens of this country will look back and say that Parliament way back in 2005 got it right. I hope that we do that.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

It is very interesting to me that we are having this debate about information that is now over 90 years old. People want access to it for historical and research purposes. Are we going to say no? There seems to be a reason why we need to be careful here.

The reason is that there was a promise made.

There are of course those who claim that census data is to be kept in confidence in perpetuity. The researchers tell us that in fact when the census was taken way back in 1911 there was not an explicit promise to keep this information confidential; it was just sort of assumed. Thus, there was not an explicit promise of confidentiality in perpetuity, they say, so therefore the question of whether or not a promise is being broken here is now considered to be but an academic point and it has been answered in the negative: there is not a breach of this promise.

People are interested in this matter. I have found a considerable amount of interest among people, both in my riding and across the country, since this particular issue has been raised a number of times. There has been no indication from people who have contacted me that they have any questions at all about the release of this information. They want it released.

To my knowledge, I have not had a single presentation to my office from people saying we should not release this data. Those who have contacted my office are unanimous in saying that the census information should be released. I do not know whether this is sufficient to persuade us to go in this direction, but it certainly is a strong indication.

I have some thoughts about this. Most people doing this research are doing so in researching their own roots or sometimes the roots of other family members who are related by marriage or whatever. Usually it is their own roots they are discussing.

I find this curious. If I may, I will go off on a little sidebar for a few milliseconds about the strong desire individuals have to know their lineage, their parentage. They want to know who their mothers, fathers and grandparents are and so on up the line. I have actually heard of people who have traced their lineage back 200 years, which is really quite a curiosity.

Our family has not really made that much effort to do this. We could probably go back about 150 years or so and that is about it, but that is because of the fact that family records are available so we do not need to go to any public records in order to find out who our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, et cetera, were.

What I am going to say in my little sidebar is to say in parenthesis that the other bill which we are now discussing in the House, Bill C-38, talks about the ability for same sex marriages. It is a foregone conclusion that with this would also come the right to have children by technological means. That is one of the implications. In fact, I personally am aware of at least one instance where, with an anonymous gamete donor, an individual has been brought to life.

This young child is only about a year old now, but when he gets older he will in fact perpetually be denied the right to ever know one-half of his genetic roots. He will know his mother's, but he will not know who his father is because that information presumably is not recorded. It was an anonymous donor. There is no information. That has other biological implications, of course, which I think we should be paying attention to. However, here are individuals who will be in perpetuity denied the right to ever know even who their first generation progenitor is or was.

To come back to Bill S-18, I believe very strongly that we should accommodate the needs and the requests of historians and genealogical researchers in order to access this data. I think the information that is available has to do with familial lines and things like date of birth, place of birth, names of parents, et cetera.

That information certainly should not be embarrassing. As a matter of fact, I think most of us are very proud of who our parents and grandparents are. We share a heritage with them because of their personal history and it is very useful to know what that history is.

One of the things that Bill S-18 provides on the form is a little box for people to check and sign. This is quite an interesting thing. Individuals who will be filling in their census forms after this bill is enacted, presuming that it passes, will see a box and this question: “Are you willing to have the release of this information after 92 years?”

I know that 92 years from now I will not care. I will no longer be here to say that someone should not have said this or that about me. As a matter of fact, I would be ready to check it off to release it tomorrow, I think, at least the information that I divulge, because I have nothing to hide at all.

I have told this story before, probably even in this House. When my wife and I lived in a little town of 200 people, one of my friends asked me how I could stand living in that little town where everybody knew what I was doing. I said that I was not going to do anything bad, so people could know what I was doing. For example, I said, “We went to Calgary and so they know. Goodbye”. I came back later on the same day or the next day. I am not concerned about that kind of confidentiality.

There is an implication here that one has done something one does not want divulged. The census form would presumably have that information. I do not know what kind of information the census people would be justified in receiving that would cause a person to say, “I will not allow the release of this information”. If they are asking questions about something which I do not want released, then I would think the real question should be, “Is our census bureau in this country legitimately asking the right questions?” I think that is a very serious question and an important one.

I have been particularly concerned about this and have had a number of constituents talk to me about it, especially when the last census was taken several years ago. I was concerned about some of the intrusive questions that were asked. People were asked whether the person with whom they were having conjugal relations was of the same gender. There were some people who were quite incensed about that.

They asked what business it was of anybody's. I have to confess that I agree: the government has absolutely no business asking questions of that nature. If the government did not ask that question, then of course there would be no information in the record that would cause the individual to say, “No, I do not want this ever released”.

Nowadays I do not know whether people who are in this--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish we could use props in the House because I do not think it is possible for my question to be answered without the use of an overhead projector, power point and a whole bunch of things, because of the complexity of it.

I would like him, if he would not mind, to please explain, so that ordinary folk can understand, the meaning of the formula where it talks about the $50 million in total taxable capital of the corporation. There is a formula there that says that in the event, and I am helping to simplify it here, the amount of capital that is subject to tax is greater than $50 million then there is a paragraph that says: a plus b times (c - $50 million) divided by $25 million. I would like him to explain, if he could, in layman's terms what that means because I know that everyone watching CPAC this morning is intrigued with this concept and would like to know exactly the implications of the measure that the government is trying to put in.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I extend my apologies. I tried to get your attention before the member began. I was taught as a youngster not to interrupt someone else when they are talking, so I really feel uneasy doing this.

However, I would like to have a clarification, if I may. Bill C-43 has been reported back by the committee. The copies that we have available are the ones that were printed at first reading. Has there been any substantial change on report stage in terms of what the committee has reported back and if so, could we have the revised copy of the bill?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, June 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in view of that and the fact that we only found out moments ago that our amendments were not to be debated today, would it be in order at this stage to request that we get that extraordinary permission, so that they can be included and debated?

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while I was getting warmed up in my speech before question period, I was talking about the fact that we seemed to have two competing dichotomous approaches the issue of income for people who were no longer able to earn their income, either because of retirement, or layoffs in their plant, or illness or whatever.

The dichotomy is in the sense that to some degree we want these people to fund their own income for the when they retire and they need income aside from their earnings. On the other hand we have these public programs.

The problem I recognize with them is they fight with each other. It seems that individuals have set aside savings for the time when they may unexpectedly lose their jobs are disadvantaged. If they have too much income from their savings and investments, they are disqualified from benefits under unemployment insurance. I still call it unemployment insurance. I know the new term is employment insurance. The fact is it does not insure employment. It is a program designed to help people when they are unemployed. Even though that change was made a number of years ago, it is unemployment insurance.

In terms of the motion before us today, we need to make some fundamental changes to the whole approach that the government uses. We need to reconcile these two different tracks on which people can provide for themselves with the aid of a government program for that time when their income ceases from employment.

Personally, I would like to see a system whereby, in unemployment insurance collections, there is not a disincentive to taking a part time or a low paying job. I know a number of people who cannot makes ends meet on the benefits they receive. If they were to go and get a low paying, part time job, those additional earnings would be clawed back at the rate of about 100%. In other words, if people earn an extra $100, they lose $100 of benefits. That is a total disincentive for people and it is a discouraging one.

It is unfortunate when individuals who would like to help themselves are discouraged from doing so because of the administrative details of the program in which they are involved.

The motion put forward by the Bloc today calls specifically for an extension of benefits for people, if they are in the later years of their earning career, who lose their jobs due to plants or factory closures or whatever. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a substantial need to recognize and address that problem, which is a large. Many people find themselves in that position.

When they are at that age, it is very difficult to go to another business or another manufacturing place. Even if jobs are available, it is difficult to persuade them at that stage in their life to embark on a program of training and integration into the new business. Many of them end up in real dire straights.

The more we can do to change our public policies with respect to our retirement and EI programs and the more we can do in policies to address those issues and give some substantial solutions to people who find themselves in these difficult places, the better job we would be doing for our constituents.

While this addresses only a part of the problem and while I would like to see much more done, I believe, based on my present analysis of it, the motion goes in the right direction. My preliminary estimate is that I am inclined to vote for the motion when it comes to a vote.

I thank the House for the opportunity of being able to address this issue on behalf of many Canadians in this situation.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

One of my friends has asked what a computer is. He is about my age so he is a little bit behind the times too.

The real challenge is the number of people who need extra training. The motion today has to do with people who lose their jobs because of factory closure, which is an increasing factor nowadays because of globalization and the fact that a lot of our manufacturing jobs are leaving this country for other parts of the world where labour is a lot less expensive.

However there are many other reasons for people losing their jobs but for people who lose their job at age 50, 55 or older, it is very difficult for them to gain employment that is both meaningful and sufficient enough to help them pay their bills. There is no doubt in my mind that we should have a national strategy to deal with this.

I have done quite a bit of thinking over the years about income support for people whose time in the workplace has come to an end. I do not know if members will recall my unhappy experience in the 2000 election when some of the ideas I was putting forward with respect to retirement income were quite badly represented. However that was another issue. Today we are talking about people who are not quite old enough to retire. I am a little afraid to be thinking out loud here lest suddenly I be misinterpreted but I really do believe that we need to address the important questions.

One of the real important issues, and it is a basic fundamental issue that must be dealt with, is with respect to who should pay for employment insurance benefits or retirement benefits. Should it be the current taxpayers? Should the people currently earning money pay for the benefits for those who have lost their jobs or who, because they have reached retirement age, quit their jobs? Should their income come from the next generation or should part of the retired person's income come from his or her earnings over a lifetime?

I get very frustrated by the fact that we have two systems in this country. One system encourages individuals to look after themselves for retirement through the purchase of RRSPs. For people facing the possibility of unemployment, we have the idea of savings income. We also have the public fund where the money comes from current taxpayers and current earners. The EI program is one of those.

It is true that most people who are eligible for benefits in the EI program are those who have been paying into the fund. However, in most instances, people who receive benefits are usually eligible for benefits quite in excess of the sum of their contributions into the program over the years. That is what an insurance program is about.

Most of us who have car insurance go through life without ever having made a claim. I happen to be one of those. I have never had a claim where I was charged. I have had guys plough into me and then they had to pay or their insurance had to pay. I have paid faithfully into that fund but even now, if I were to have a major claim, one involving a public liability, it is possible that the claim would exceed the sum of what I have paid in, and so it is with EI. It is the same thing with the retirement benefits. Some people gain less in benefits compared to what they pay in and others pay more.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Some people here do not even know what a slide rule is. What we are dealing with here is the competition between young people and older people who have been trained in different technology.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the privilege to stand once again in the House and talk about an issue that is important to Canadians.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are over the age of 50 or 55 who lose their jobs, especially in the current situation in this country when many of them find themselves unqualified for some of the new positions that might be available to people just out of university. Some of these older workers have been trained in older technology.

When I first started teaching many years ago I actually taught my math students to use a slide rule because computers had not yet been invented.