Ken Epp

[Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, May 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member and I always have. I liked him then and I like him still. He has undergone an interesting metamorphosis in the sense that I asked him a direct question and he almost acted as if he was a Liberal cabinet minister. He totally danced around it without answering it.

Someday I will have a private conversation with him and ask him whether he believes that the Senate should be elected. I firmly do. About 98% of what the member said in response to my question was good. Yes, there are hard working senators; it is our system and our constitution provides for it; the Senate has the ability to originate bills, as it did with Bill S-40, the bill we are debating today; and yes, unless we are able to work with them no legislation would be passed.

I must point out the fact that the Senate, being billed as a chamber of sober second thought, hopefully would give assent to bills which make sense and would refuse assent or amend bills which are not right and not as good as they could be. That should be the function of the Senate. Indeed, that should be the function of this place. That should be the function of our committees. That should be the function of this House when we are debating a bill at report stage or even at third reading. There should be room for amending a bad bill and thereby making it a better bill. It does not happen under our present system. I really think it should.

I would hope that when we form the government after the next election that the Senate, being made up of a number of Liberal and Conservative senators and one Canadian Alliance senator, would at that stage for the good of the country provide the same service that it does now. I find it very offensive to even contemplate the fact that the tentacles of the Prime Minister's control reach all around here with these members on the government side voting on command on bills and motions that go over to the Senate or in this case they have derived from the Senate. The Prime Minister controls the outcome of the vote in the Senate. The Senate should be independent of this place.

The Senate should be able to look at a bill such as Bill S-40 and provide a good bill. We happen to think that it could. I resent the member for Dauphin--Swan River even implying that there is something dishonourable on my part by supporting a bill because it originated from the Senate.

If I were to say that I would not vote for a bill because it came from the Senate then I would be in the same trap. That is, I would be voting either for or against a motion or a bill based on where it originated, rather than whether or not it was a good idea. That happens all too often in this House. Our amendments are routinely rejected by the Liberals because they come from the Alliance.

Canadians honestly truly suffer because of a result of that. They miss out on the collective wisdom of this place, as of the other place that the hon. member spoke of.

The other thing is, and we will have to talk about this privately, sure, we must work with people from other parties. We must, from time to time, co-operate with members of other opposition parties. I have no problem supporting a bill or a motion that comes from the Liberal side if it is a good bill or motion.

In fact, the record will show that the Canadian Alliance and before that the previous official opposition party, the Reform Party, was probably highest in the number of bills and motions that it supported from the government side. I have voted in favour of a number of bills from the Liberal side. This is because I study them. Our researchers study them and when it is all finished if it is a good bill and deserves my support, I am not so small as to say that it came from the wrong side, so I will not support it. That is beneath a serious legislator and parliamentarian.

Today we are talking about Bill S-40. It is a bill that has to do with bankruptcies. It is one of the larger bills that we have debated. It has a few paragraphs in two pages. Of course I speak facetiously since Hansard does not show sarcasm. I would have to say the member was dripping with sarcasm when he said it was a large bill because otherwise how would Hansard record that?

Bill S-40 amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to clarify the application of it with respect to bankruptcies. I support the bill because it is a good one. It would help to improve Canada's productivity I hope. It would improve the ability of Canadians to raise capital and members of our investment population to trade and work in Canada.

One of the most glaring failures of the Liberal government has been the way it has driven people and money out of this country. It is a huge failure on the part of the government. Finally we have a bill which would have a force in the opposite direction. It would help to keep some of the business activity in Canada rather than sending it to the United States.

We have a great number of people who have left in the last nine years while the Liberals have been in government. I regret that. This weekend I was back home visiting my aged father who was not feeling well. I made an emergency trip to see him and spent some time in the hospital this week. Frankly, I think it is atrocious that the policies of the Liberal government have forced our medical personnel to go to the United states, literally thousands of doctors and nurses. They are practising medicine in the United States while our system suffers from lack of personnel.

I must admire the people who are still here. Some of them say they have families here so it is not that easy to move, otherwise they would. Others say they are Canadian and they are loyal to this country, and some of them add come hell or high water because they like to quote the finance minister. They are staying here but it is certainly not because it is an advantage for them to do so in terms of providing for their families, looking after their income and having a reduced tax load.

This is further reflected in the value of our dollar. We have a dollar which is incredibly low. Under the government it has sunk from around 75¢ down to around 65¢ U.S. That is outrageous. That dollar is not only a cause of our economic problems but it is also a reflection of them. The lower the dollar goes, the lower our productivity. On the other hand, when the dollar goes down it is also an indicator that we are not doing well economically in our competition with the United States and with other countries. We measure our dollar against the U.S. dollar.

I would be pleased to see many bills, such as Bill S-40, come from the government that would start taking some positive steps in making our economy stronger and healthier, so that as a result Canadians can stay here and work here.

I wish to mention investment. It is atrocious that people who are looking for an economical way of conducting their investment business must go to American brokerage places to get the best deal.

It is imperative that we be competitive in this country. We cannot help it. We must compete with the United States because money goes where it is most efficiently handled. The only time investors ask what the worst deal in town is is when they are forced to, like with the Canada pension plan which returns probably the lowest rate on investment income that there can possibly be. Yet everybody is forced into it so they have to participate in it.

There are many people who would love to invest outside of Canada, and I have to ask why? Why not invest in Canada? It is nice to talk about it, but we must provide the economic and business climate so that our own businesses, investment firms and banks can thrive. There is nothing preventing Canadians from taking their business outside the country. I for one believe that we can do much better than we have done so far. Hopefully Bill S-40 is one small step.

I would like to speak about the bankruptcy situation. There are thousands of people who have gone into bankruptcy. It is due to the policies of the Liberal government that thousands of businesses and farmers have gone bankrupt. Bill S-40 addresses the bankruptcy question and would help protect the financial institutions mentioned in it. It is important that we have a bill which would improve our economy and reduce bankruptcies. We must support the bill because it is a small step in improving the economy and the business climate of Canada and it is a bill for Canadians.

[Payment Clearing and Settlement Act, May 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I cannot resist the temptation to ask the member a question. He made a little remark about the Senate near the beginning of his speech. I know he was first elected to this House as a member of the Reform Party. Subsequently of course we left that party and we joined a new party called the Canadian Alliance. We invited the Tories to come along but they said they would not.

When the hon. member was first elected, I understand he felt very strongly that the Senate should be elected to give it legitimacy. At the beginning of his speech he talked about the fact that he had met a number of senators who were very honourable and hardworking. I would concur with that. I have met some of them myself. However that does not detract from the point that they ought to stand for election and be accountable to the people they represent.

I do not want to embarrass the hon. member but I want to ask him a really tough question. Has he changed his mind on the electability of senators or does he still believe that they should be elected? It is relevant because the bill starts with S for Senate and he said it in his speech.

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Sorry. I almost reduced myself to some non-political correctness.

Firefighters are worth the extra costs that municipalities, provinces and the federal government might be involved in paying. However I think the federal government would be involved in a very minor way. All it does is change the Income Tax Act so that the accrual rate can go up to 2.33% per year instead of 2% per year, which, dare I whisper it, is already in place for members of parliament. I should not be saying that but it is true. I say rather proudly and publicly if it is good enough for us, surely it is good enough for them.

I favour very much getting on with it and doing it. Let us make sure that our firefighters are getting what they deserve and what they have asked for for so long. It only makes sense. I support most strongly seeing some action on this issue and not just considering the advisability of it.

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am also delighted to support the motion as amended because I too value very highly the work of firefighters. The case they make for increasing their accrual rate so they can retire five years early is a compelling argument. They face many hazards and dangers to their health as they fulfill their lives as firefighters and they end up reducing their lifespans. They want to retire earlier so as to enjoy more years of their retirement. I have always felt that was a very compelling argument and have always been in favour of it.

We need to recognize in this particular instance that as my colleague from Medicine Hat has pointed out, the motion is one of non-action. It is a way for the government to say that if the motion passes, it will consider it and think about it. It reminds me of when I was a young man with a young family. When my kids would ask me for something, I would say I would think about it. It is a very polite way of saying no.

For the government to consider the advisability of it is simply a way of saying it wants to think about it but it does not really want to do it. I think we ought to do it.

We ought to also be aware that there is a considerable cost. If we look at it actuarially, it will cost money. I approve of that. Firemen and firewomen, or whatever the technical term is--

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before I begin speaking, does the member for Medicine Hat have the opportunity to continue the debate in order to put forward the argument for his motion?

[Immigration, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, applicants for refugee status in this country have to show that their lives are somehow in danger or that they have other stresses in the country from which they are applying. That is not true for refugee claimants from the United States. Can the government not get that into its head?

[Immigration, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an extremely serious matter here today. Thousands of refugees are being denied access to the process because the system is clogged up by applicants from the United States.

When was the last time we heard of a family crossing the border from the Unites States because their lives were being threatened in that country and they needed to get to Canada?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought up the question of EI and the fact people are required to pay into it who do not have any hope at all of collecting it.

Way back in the 1950s when I was a student at university I remember writing a letter to what at that time was the unemployment insurance commission. I said I did not want to pay that premium because I was going back to school. I was ineligible to collect and that for me to be required to pay into a fund from which I could not possibly collect was a form of theft and I objected. I remember getting a nice letter back from the department saying that it was required by law and that it was my employer who was subject to penalty and who would go to jail if he or she failed to deduct it from me and remit it. I went to my boss and he said that for $2.40 a week he was not going to jail and that was the end of the matter. I remember being incensed at that time.

This gives me an opportunity to mention that I have never ever been drawn for private member's bills but one of my private member's bills addresses exactly this question. It would ensure that if individuals at the end of the year were to show ineligibility for employment insurance because they were returning to school, or for any other reason, then they would be able to get a refund of the premiums. That is one of the private member's bills I am working on. I have not yet submitted it to the House but it is in the works. I would like to say that every once in a while we agree with those guys at our far left when there are a few common sense things.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke invoked my name on a couple of occasions. He took some exception to the fact that I proposed that businesses, industry, entrepreneurs, investors and private individuals should be able to keep more of their money in their pockets and that the government should take less.

I would like to correct the misconception that he may have about that. I believe there is a proper role for the federal government, as there is for provincial and municipal governments. The fact is governments at all levels, but particular evident at the federal level, tax us to death and then seem to have no regard for the money that they have taken out of our pockets in the way they spend it.

The most recent example was on the last day of the fiscal year the Liberals bought a couple of new jets. They were not in the estimates. The Department of National Defence did not indicate that they were required. There was no justification for it as far as we knew. It just came out of the blue that the Liberals had a hundred million dollars to spend.

A hundred million dollars is an awful lot of money extracted from poor working Canadians who on every paycheque are required to forgo in some instances up to half their income in provincial and federal taxes. That is precisely what I am talking about. Instead of increasing the number of people who are totally dependent upon the government for their livelihood, if we left that money in the hands of businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals, our economy would be much better and everyone would be much better off than they are now.

That is my thesis and I stand by it.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

As my hon. colleague says, the government has stolen the money from them. There is no recourse. People in insurable employment must pay whether they like it or not. The government seems to take great delight in doing this. It has overcharged in premiums and cut benefits. It ought to hang its head in shame.

The government has reached into the pockets of federal civil servants and taken $30 billion out of their pension fund. Total assets in the fund had grown beyond expectation and it is not unreasonable to say the moneys should be taken back by the employer. However it should only have been the portion the employer paid in. The government totally ignored the fact that the pension fund surplus was a combination of the contributions of employees and employers who are the taxpayers of Canada via the government.

Yes, taxpayers are entitled to get some of the money back. I do not argue with that. However the government took it all. Federal civil servants who contributed to their pension fund had their money taken away from them by a government in a majority vote with no regard to what it was doing. Over and over we have seen the government's insatiable appetite for separating Canadians from their hard earned dollars. This must end.

While I support Bill C-47 in broad principle I do so reluctantly. I do not buy into the philosophy that says the end justifies the means. I have considerable hesitation in supporting a bill that would presume to reduce smoking by increasing taxes. The outcome, as good as it may be, should not be used to justify increasing the taxes of Canadian citizens.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to again speak to Bill C-47. The government will probably continue its policy of tax grabs and wild, unaccountable spending. I would rather exert my efforts in replacing them on that side of the House. Let us get rid of the Liberals and put into their place a responsible government that treats the taxpayer with a careful and fully accountable trust.