Ken Epp

[The Senate, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, senators are appointed from a list of candidates. The Prime Minister has a list. Alberta people have a list, democratically chosen.

Could the Prime Minister give the House and Albertans just one valid reason for claiming that he cannot use the list that was provided by the people in a democratic vote?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a question of relevance. I think the parliamentary secretary has pulled the wrong speech out of his folder. We are not talking about the budget that is to come. We are trying to implement the budget that was passed last year.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the presentation by my colleague, one of my fellow Edmonton members of Parliament now that my riding has changed.

I would like to ask him a question with respect to this $100 billion tax cut that the Liberals like to crow about. It is my view that this is a real mess in communications because of the fact that the budgets are always annual budgets. We are talking about a 12 month period, yet the Liberals like to spread the myth that there is this huge $100 billion tax cut. Then they say in a wee small voice or print it in wee small letters that it is over 10 years. It is really only $10 billion per year and not $100 billion as they are implying incorrectly. It is part of the Liberal communications spin which they are so good at. The bottom line is that they deceive Canadians on it.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me when he objects strongly and takes great umbrage at such miscommunication on the part of the government. The government is supposed to be the manager and the steward of Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that during and leading up to the last election our party also used independent sources and came up with a projection on the surplus that turns out now to be very accurate. We did it. The Liberals could not.

They brag about the fact that Canadians gave them another mandate. The fact is they misrepresented the facts to the Canadian electorate while they were in the election campaign.

I really am puzzled by that this member, whom I consider an honourable and honest member, would perpetuate this myth that they are doing it correctly, when year after year we have found those projections erroneous.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with the justification that the parliamentary secretary gave for these totally and erroneous projections of the surplus every year. In the last round we were told the surplus would be $1.9 billion and it turned out to be $9.1 billion. That is an awfully large difference.

The fact is--

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is really unusual but I would like to ask for unanimous consent for me to have one more minute to give a rebuttal to the errors that the member from the NDP just made.

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the then CCF party, now the NDP, a very important question. The members of that party always talk as if they are opposed to the reduction of our national debt. I would like to pose the question to the member in the following way.

There are people in the country who are poor and who need help from the government. Then there are others who have more money than they need and they are generally the ones who have the fiscal capacity to buy Canada savings bonds and other debentures, which is the government's way of borrowing money.

Therefore, when we are in debt we land up actually transferring money, usually from poor people because they pay taxes too in this country. That money is transferred to those who already have too much because they have the Canada savings bonds and we are paying the interest. I know that the debt has come down and our interest rates are now low so that this amount of money has now decreased, but it used to be that one out of every four dollars collected in taxes went to pay interest.

Why are the NDP members continually opposed to reducing the debt and stopping that transfer of money from Canada's poor to Canada's rich because the rich are lending the money to the government? I would think that the NDP, as I would, would like to see that debt eliminated so that we can use taxpayers' revenue to provide government services and programs which are needed in this country.

[Points of Order, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a request for you. We are literally being inundated with petitions by the thousands on the issue of marriage. I wonder whether there is anything you could do in your office to expedite the rapid approval of those from the Clerk's office so we can present them in a timely fashion in the House?

[Millennium Partnership Program, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has an awful record of being scandal ridden. In the unity fund, there were $725 million unaccounted for. In the sponsorship scandal, there were $250 million unaccounted for. Now the millennium bureau has $150 million for which the accounting is absent, deliberately hidden by Gagliano and his Liberal gang.

Does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that, as finance minister, he knew nothing at all about this hidden Liberal slush fund?

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister did not deny that a former staff member of the immigration minister was under investigation for security. We are not asking her to comment on such an investigation. We want her to confirm that an investigation is underway.

Giving us the facts on this does not breach any rules. The question is simple and the answer can be one word, yes or no. Which is it?