Ken Epp

[Employment Insurance Act, March 11th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (elimination of waiting period and repayment of premiums).

Mr. Speaker, a problem way back in the late 1950s and early 1960s when I was a student was that I had to pay unemployment insurance premiums. I could not collect it, but I still had to pay the premiums.

Students nowadays still have that problem. They are forced to pay employment insurance premiums yet they cannot possibly collect EI because they are not available for employment. This bill would allow the students and their employers to get their premiums back. This taking of money from poor students is unwarranted.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Homeowners' Freedom from Double Taxation Act, March 11th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of property taxes paid in respect of a principal residence).

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to introduce my private member's bill again. In 11 years my name has never been drawn, but I hope that one of these times we will actually get to debate the bill and vote on it.

This bill is a very important one. Businesses can deduct from their taxable incomes the rental or ownership costs of their buildings. Certainly people who rent places can because it is reflected in the costs that their landowners can use for their tax purposes. Homeowners cannot and my bill would simply make an item deductible if they had taxes that were paid to municipalities or provinces. It would be a deduction from their federal income tax and hence their provincial income tax as well.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a tremendous contradiction by the member who just tried to defend that what the Liberals are doing is contrary to the vote of this Parliament. If in fact what he said is true, then it would have been totally redundant to have brought Bill C-31 and Bill C-32 to the House. If the government could do it without parliamentary approval, then it should not have brought in the bills.

The government did bring in the bills. Parliament debated. We contemplated the issues. It was clearly a decision of Parliament that the process the government was embarking on was ill advised. Parliament, in its collective wisdom among all the members, decided that this was not to be passed because it was not the right decision to make. So Parliament, being asked by the government to make the decision, did make it and now the Liberals are basically thumbing their noses at Parliament. They are saying that notwithstanding what Parliament decided, they are going to do it anyway.

I think what you heard, Mr. Speaker, was a really weak presentation by the government, like a little child caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar, trying to explain why it is that he or she is doing what he or she wants to do anyway.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the dignity and the authority of Parliament by making sure that the vote of this Parliament is upheld by the government of the day.

[Petitions, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add yet another 71 names to the petitions that have been presented on the subject of marriage. These petitioners, mostly from my riding but also from areas just outside my riding as presently bounded, say that marriage is defined, and has long been defined, as the union of one man and one woman, and is the best situation possible for the raising of children and the foundation for families.

The petitioners urge Parliament to continue to keep the definition of marriage as it is now in federal law as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from my riding and from outlying areas on the subject of marriage. I would like to pay particular tribute to Donna Clarkson, a constituent in my riding, who has really helped to assemble these petitions and to allow concerned citizens in our country to express themselves in this way.

This petition asks Parliament to respect the vote that was held in 1999. The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians support retaining the current definition. Social policy should be made by elected parliamentarians and not by appointed judges, so they are asking that we use all possible legislative and administrative means including section 33, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary in order to restore, preserve and protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33, among other things, implements some changes to taxation vis-à-vis the care of people who are disabled.

One of the huge areas of inadequacy in our tax system and in our budgets is the fact that there are many families who have disabled or aged parents living with them and yet cannot properly deduct from their taxable income the additional costs they incur in order to care for these people. Basically they are taking them out of the health care system and looking after them themselves but get beans for it from the Liberal government.

I wonder whether we can ever expect to see some recognition of families who take care of disabled people or aged parents in their own homes, that they would be able to, say for example, apply the basic exemption of those individuals to their own, and an additional exemption to represent and to reflect the actual costs that they incur in looking after these people.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary an important question.

He talked about the fund that was used for the provision of security in airports. We all recognized over time that the fee was way too high for the amount of money that was actually spent. There are still huge gaps in security, especially in a number of airports across the country that have no security at all, and yet those passengers still have to pay the fee.

I wonder whether he would anticipate that the implementation of this almost one year old budget that would reduce the fee slightly would have a further and very necessary adjustment in the budget we are about to hear in about 10 minutes.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present another 604 names on petitions dealing with the definition of marriage. Most of the petitioners are from my riding but there are some from the previous riding of Elk Island. Many of them still think I am their MP even though I am not any longer due to the boundary changes.

Due to the vote in 1999 and because they take exception to an unelected judiciary making important social changes, the petitioners urge Parliament to take every measure necessary to preserve the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Supply, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite incredible that Liberal speakers responding to this motion are quite consistent in saying they do not want to do what the Auditor General has asked them to do.

The role of the Auditor General is to provide for accurate, reliable, and trustworthy accounting practices when accounting for the use of taxpayers' money. The Auditor General in this report has pointed out, and it is specifically stated, that she is not talking about the advisability of the funds or the use of them. Yet, the Liberal members keep questioning whether or not we support the use of these foundations.

That is not the question. It is not the motion today. The motion is simply to provide for accountability and proper reporting to Parliament on how taxpayers' money is being used. I think it is a very legitimate question. It is also true that the Auditor General has said explicitly that the government has responded to the complaints in such a way as to basically say it is not going to do what she asks it to do.

The purpose of the motion today is to say to the government that the Auditor General is recommending it. The official opposition supports it. We find support from the other opposition parties. We are saying that the majority of people in this Parliament believe that these changes ought to be made.

I would like to ask the member who just spoke why there would be this reluctance to give accountability to Canadian taxpayers? Why not simply do it? If there are questions, acceding to the motion today and doing what it asks will simply improve the trust of Canadians. Why do the Liberals not want that? Are they in fact literally hiding things in these, as we refer to in our terminology, slush funds? Is that actually accurate? I cannot believe that.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to present, on behalf of a number of constituents in my riding, yet another petition on the issue of marriage.

These are people who say that this should be decided by elected officials in a free vote and not by an unelected judiciary, and that the government should use all possible legislative and administrative means to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

There are all together now I do not know how many thousands of petitions, but this adds 57 to the number of names on that count.