Ken Epp

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member from the Bloc is simply asking us to move to petitions so he can present one, for whatever reason. I think it would be greatly courteous of us to do that. I would, on his behalf, ask again for unanimous consent to move to petitions.

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech made by the hon. member who just presented the motion.

One of the things on which I would like him to comment is a certain provision in the code, this code that will hereby be adopted because we are pretty sure that the Liberals can pass this; they have a pretty good majority so it is a given that this will pass. I would like him to comment on that part of the code which has to do with disclosure of not only a member's income, assets and liabilities but also those of immediate family members, and the difficulty that may pose to some individuals in terms of actually disclosing this.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I also would like to commend my colleague on his speech. He hit on a number of very good points.

I would like him to consider commenting further on some of the criticism that we presumably have heard from the Liberals here today in their specious arguments against the motion. They talked about the fact that it would somehow diminish the right of either Parliament or the citizens if we had fixed election dates. The argument has been put forward along the lines that somehow they then would not have the right to vote when there was an issue before us. That is not the case now, because if there is a real issue of accountability before the people of Canada, if the Liberal government, the way it is right now, feels it cannot win the next election, it just will not call one.

In actual fact there is, in my view, less democracy because of the fact that the government cannot be held accountable when the issue is there. At least if there were fixed election dates, if there was an issue on the table at the time the election came around, the government would get hammered, as I expect it will be in any case in the next election, whether it is this spring, in the fall, or next year.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in responding to my questions the member asked me a question so now I can answer. The member often spoke about fixed elections, which is the last thing we want in this country. We are debating fixed date elections here today.

He wanted to know how we would be better off if we were to have fixed date elections. I could give the member many answers but because of limited time I will give him only one serious example. I believe we would have many more good candidates running for the various parties if they could plan ahead, plan their vacation time at the time of the next coming election so that they could use that time for campaigning instead of taking time off, which many people cannot afford to do. I was one of those cases. I had to borrow money in order to replace my salary when I took a leave of absence without pay to run for election.

That is only one reason of many. All he has to do tomorrow is to read Hansard and all of the excellent speeches from this side of the House that were in support of the motion today.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was teaching, I would occasionally give students zero because they did not correctly answer the question that had been asked. For example, I may have asked them how long it would take to get from A to B and they would say the distance was 200 meters. That was the right answer for the distance, but it was not the right answer for the question I asked, so they received zero.

That member and almost all the Liberal members who spoke today have been giving arguments that do not address the question. They talk about everything other than the fact that we simply want to have a system whereby, at every regular interval, there will be a federal election, barring a vote of non-confidence which would change things. I have not heard from that member or any other Liberal member any single valid reason to vote against the motion today. They have talked about everything else.

That member talked about staggering and how that would confuse the electorate. I do not think so. People in the United States are not confused about staggered elections. That is not the issue today.

He talked about ad scam and accountability. It is ironic that one of the reasons we have this big uncertainty now about the election is because of ad scam. The government does not want to be accountable so it is contemplating putting the election off until the fall or even next year. That is opposite to the argument that member was making. He can respond if he wants.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the irrelevant part of the member's statement across the way had to do with the Governor General. As a matter of fact, it is the Governor General who has the only legal power to dissolve Parliament for the purpose of an election. That is the way our Constitution reads right now.

I suppose it begs the question, but the real issue here is that the Prime Minister is the one who gives the Governor General the signal. That has become the convention. Under the pattern of responsible government, it is still up to the Prime Minister on the governing side to make the decision. The Governor General has not, I think in error, refused the dissolution of Parliament on the last two occasions because in each instance the government had a clear majority. The government has a clear majority now. There is no reason for an election. Legally, the Governor General could stop it, but the Prime Minister alone has the prerogative. That is wrong.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I love math and I always have. I did a little calculation here. The average time between elections under the Liberal regime is about 1,293 days. If the Prime Minister calls the election for June 7, which is a possibility, it will be 1,288 days, so he is a little under the average.

The four year cycle is 1,463 days, which means that if we were to budget that on a daily basis, an election under the Liberals would cost $193,349 per day, whereas if we were to have one every four years it would be $170,882 per day, a difference of some $23,000 a day. In my view, calling an election every three and a half years is just another way of the Liberals showing contempt for the taxpayer dollars.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is becoming evident that the Liberals have been given instructions to speak against the motion, because every one of them has nothing but reasons against the motion and very few are conceding anything that is positive about it. The message is that they will be voting against it.

I really wonder about the correction of the democratic deficit on the other side when even in this debate we are not able to have an open debate, looking at all of the factors involved.

I compare this election call thing given to the Prime Minister as being a hockey tournament where the coach of one team has the right to drop the puck whenever the game is to start. He will wait to drop the puck until the other team members, who, after waiting for 12 or 13 hours for the game to start, go to the dressing room or go down and have a steak while they are waiting.

This is all about giving the Prime Minister and the government in power the edge on starting the contest. They wait until they have the best winning conditions. That is not democracy. That is just simply saying that the government in power will do everything it can to win. Next time it will be us. I hope that we have it changed by then so that people know there is true accountability on the side of the government.

I would sure like to hear the member's comment on the fact that this is very unfair, based on the fact that only one side gets to know when the election will be called while the other side does not.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few seconds to make a comment on the motion and ask my colleague to respond to it.

I remember the first time I was elected. I became a candidate in 1992. The election was not called until October, about 16 or 17 months later. During that time I had a job teaching students. I do not know whether members are aware of this, but students fare better if they do not have changes of instructors. From semester to semester, I did not know whether I should take a leave of absence without pay in order to run for election or whether I should keep my job. It caused a whole deal of anxiety to both our administration of the place and myself personally. It was just totally impossible to plan.

One reason I wanted to run for the Reform Party was because even away back then this was one of its policies. It is a very good one. It allows every candidate for every party across the country, which is at least 1,200 or 1,300 candidates, to plan. It allows their workers to plan. It allows all of them to get a handle on where their life is going in the immediate future.

I would like to have my colleague comment on his experiences in this regard and again to confirm and underline the importance of passing this motion today.

[Points of Order, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I trust then that you will also chastise the member for Mississauga South whom I have observed taking pictures in the House.