Ken Epp

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the motion lists six specific items. When the government tables legislation I am sure it would be free to add even more, but it would have to include the minimum of these six.

It includes things like naming all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. It includes a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, not just taking away their charitable status but actually banning the fundraising. It includes immediate ratification of the stated international convention. It also includes three more.

In a follow up to the question that my colleague asked just moments ago, would the member from the Liberal Party who just spoke enlighten us on which of these six items the Liberal side specifically objects to that would cause it to contemplate not voting in favour of this very good motion?

[Taxation, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are being taxed to death and they resent the wasting of their money on foolish things, like sending heating rebates to prisoners.

On behalf of Canadian families I ask: Why is their tax bill relative to their income 50% higher now than in 1961?

[Taxation, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 1961 the average family paid $1,675 in taxes from an income of $5,000. Today the average family earns $51,174 and pays $24,309 in taxes. That is 47.5% of their entire income. That is more than is needed for food, clothing and shelter combined.

How can the finance minister justify this gross overtaxation?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitated for a moment to ask questions or make comments because I wanted to give others an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I enjoyed the speech from our rookie member and congratulate him on having such insight into private members' business. Does he have any comment with respect to what people in his riding are saying are the issues and what they would like him to bring forward? Does he think that if the motion passes today, as we anticipate it will, it will enhance his ability to represent his constituents?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I had a funny idea. We talked a bit about MPs getting a raise in salary. There is no doubt in my mind that increasing the authenticity of private members' business by making things votable would do something to justify paying a member of parliament an executive level salary.

This is my hare-brained idea. What would happen if we were to tell members that a random roll call would be taken at some time every month during private members' business and receipt of one's salary for that month would be dependent on the member being in the House during private members' business? It is a hare-brained idea but maybe it would work.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member has participated very enthusiastically in private members' business, not only in the process but also in promoting his own private members' bills.

With respect to votability he said that some members did not want to participate and never prepare private members' bills or motions. That would certainly reduce the number.

It was proposed earlier today during debate that we might increase the number of hours allotted per week to private members' business by adding an hour first thing in the morning and another in the evening. Another suggestion was to have all day Friday devoted to private members' business.

If Friday were devoted to private members' business, would that not make it very difficult to ever promote the idea? Most members would take Friday as a day to go back to their riding as many of them do that now for legitimate reasons. It would mean that we would be trying to promote the idea of private members' business without members being present to hear the debate. When it would come time to vote it would be very difficult. Could the member respond to that idea and how we would handle it?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Mississauga Centre. She has done a pretty good job in a very difficult position. I had the opportunity to serve with her when she was chairperson. It was an interesting challenge and very frustrating, yet at all times she managed to sort of keep her head and keep us moving forward.

With respect to the actual choices, basically our motion today would take away from her and her committee the right to scuttle a bill before it comes to the House. In other words, we are saying that all private members' business should be votable and it would be then the duty of the member to make sure the criteria was met so it would have a reasonable chance of passing.

Does she agree with that? Does she support the motion we have today?

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member splitting his time? I think his time is up.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was with unanimous consent when there were no Liberals in the House and we were able to sneak that through. It was a coup of major proportions.

The members in the back no longer had the luxury of waiting for the members in the front to vote to see how they should vote, so they actually had to think about it.

Recently we dealt with the issue of pay raises for members of parliament. In my speech on that topic I said that I had a motion to amend that particular bill. I suggested that all Liberal members should be eligible for a raise in pay if they could say what it was they voted against when they voted against my amendment.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the member for Calgary Southeast has just said.

I think back during my years here and I had the questionable privilege for a time of being on that infamous subcommittee of private members. I always felt ill at ease because of the very subjective criteria that were used. There was really no way of properly evaluating bills that should be votable or should not. I understand that the criteria are now somewhat different but still very subjective.

I remember with fondness the leadership of the member for Mississauga Centre who at that time was chairperson of that committee. We were able, through some sleepiness on the part of the Liberals, to bring through some amendments to the way private members' business was conducted. One of the very significant ones of course was that the voting would begin in the back rows so that the members in the front row—