Ken Epp

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2003-04, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out the fact that there are a number of members at each of your calls saying no. There is hardly anyone saying yes, yet you are saying yes to the carrying of the motions. I think you should ask the Liberals to at least wake up, when they are spending $50 billion, to say yes.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, this is quite incredible. I appreciate all the members on the other side as persons, but we have to keep our focus on what we trying to do.

When she brags about having paid down something on the debt, the debt is still higher than it was when the Liberals took over a little over 10 years ago. They allowed it to grow and part of that reason was the mismanagement of the funds. It is time that they own up to that.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am amused by this speech. It is a whole bunch of huff-and-puff trying to defend the indefensible. There are areas of corruption here that are so great they totally neutralize any positive effects the program could have had. It just so happens that when we get that kind of activity in a program, it destroys the value of the whole program.

Besides that, I will tell this member that in Edmonton, which used the sponsorship program to produce those funny little balloons that are banged together and handed out at football games, I had way more complaints about the waste of government money in doing that. In fact, that is the only response I had to it from constituents. I did not have a single person say to me that they were so glad the Government of Canada did that and it made them feel so good about their country. Not one person said that. I asked some people. They said no, that those things were useless, and they asked why we were wasting the money on them.

So even though some of it, as the member said, did not have any of this taint to it, it still was a mostly useless program. If we want to build unity in the country, what we need to do is to run the government in such a way that it is beyond reproach and taxpayers know that their money is being well spent and well managed. That is how we build unity, not through these phoney programs.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech just made by our NDP colleague. I would like to address but one issue of the many things he said when he directly attacked our new leader.

I would like to point out to him that calling our new leader to a debate does not mean that our new leader automatically should drop everything he has on his plate right now and engage in a debate with the leader of the NDP, as wonderful as that would be. For the hon. member to conclude that there is an unwillingness to debate because of the fact that the schedule does not now possibly permit it with an election looming, I think he is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

Further, I would also like to point out that when finally the Prime Minister does decide to go to the people for a vote, there will be more than ample opportunity to debate among the leaders of the various parties, to put their visions forward, but that will then be done in an orderly fashion among all of the leaders.

I think the member is incorrect when he misinterprets this and says that our leader is unwilling to debate. The schedule right now does not permit it. There will be time for it and we will be very happy to debate especially the Liberals but also the NDP on the values of Canadians for the next election.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech given by our colleague over in the Bloc part of the House.

I would like to say to him that the purpose of Bill C-49, in my opinion, is primarily so the new Prime Minister can have it both ways. He wants to call an early election and he wants it to be under the new boundaries so as to curry some favour with certain parts of the country where they are, even under present population statistics, still underrepresented, because the process takes so long.

If people were to ask the member why the Prime Minister needs to call an election this spring instead of waiting until at least the fall, what answer would the member give his constituents or others who might ask?

[Firearms Registry, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is the primary job of Parliament to manage the expenditures of government. Why is the Prime Minister talking democratic deficit when he is totally undemocratic in ordering his MPs to vote on command on this important issue?

[Firearms Registry, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle costs are completely out of control. All MPs are getting this message.

Why not give members of Parliament a free vote on this issue so that they could freely express the wishes of the people to stop pumping their money into this bottomless sinkhole?

[Ethics Commissioner, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, is it not ironic that this government, when talking about its so-called new ethics regime, is acting in a most unethical fashion? Describing what it is doing would actually require unparliamentary language.

Liberals keep using the phrase “independent ethics commissioner” and yet the bill explicitly says that when dealing with cabinet ministers, the commissioner will provide private and confidential advice to the Prime Minister. That is the same as the Chrétien plan, and it is rotten to the core.

They are hoping that by saying the word “independent” often enough, the people will come to believe it. Sadly, the media is falling for the trap because it has not read the actual wording in the bill.

I am most displeased. How I wish that this Liberal government would own up to its deception in this matter so that people could judge this plan based on truth rather than on the Liberal spin. To quote the Minister of Finance, “Repeating a falsehood does not make it true”.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have here a substantial dilemma in the sense that the prorogation of a house usually means that the government wants to start over again with a new set of proposed legislation, or it gives them a good way of dropping legislation that apparently, as expressed by members of Parliament, does not have the support of the people of Canada. That way, instead of the embarrassment of a bill carrying on and actually getting passed even though it does not enjoy public consent, it gives the government the opportunity wipe the slate clean.

The government House leader just made a statement which I think is of great significance, and that is that this is based on unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent given, then of course we can proceed to reinstate a bill or a motion. I would like to see that that procedure should follow. We should be able to state each bill separately and individually and if there is not unanimous consent to carry it forward, then indeed it would have to be reintroduced. That seems to have been the practice, according to the words of the government House leader.

If that were done, then I think probably we would have very little objection, because there are a number of bills that this government is now trying to bring forward from the tired old Chrétien government which we would seriously like to see dropped. If that were done, then probably there could be some agreement reached. Otherwise, I think we are going to be at a serious impasse.

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will very briefly conclude, with your permission, what I need to say on this thing.

I would simply like to say that this is a very dangerous precedent. Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that members have to make a decision on a motion before they have been given the opportunity to hear it all. I would also like to say that my point of order seeking unanimous consent for the creation of this special committee was one of great urgency and importance. I am disappointed that Liberal members do not want to have a committee struck in this fashion.