Ken Epp

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly impressed. The adjectives I used to describe the hon. member have now been proven correct. He gave a great speech.

I have a couple of questions or comments. The Prime Minister, during his swing through the Atlantic provinces in the election campaign or leading up to it, made a significant policy change. He announced that the cap on equalization payments would be removed for one year.

What does the member think about a government that makes major policy changes for one year only during an election year? If it is a necessary step, should it not be taken whether or not there is an election and not cancelled when the election is over?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was just waiting for the end of the interpretation. Unfortunately I am unilingual and I depend on those wonderful people in the booths to do my talking for me.

I will answer the question in the following way. Indeed there is but one taxpayer. We are burdened to death with taxes at all levels of government. The federal government takes the largest share, then the provinces and our municipalities take some.

I would definitely agree with the member but I would ask him to come to a small degree of realism. Members of the Bloc are intent upon leading their people into forming a separate government independent from Canada. That is their commitment. They are good at communicating it and I have to admire them. It is a party that has managed to stay on track and focused on what its goals are.

However I caution the member, the members of his party and all citizens of Quebec to make sure they do the arithmetic accurately. As residents of a recipient province in the equalization program, they would have a very hard time demonstrating to me, using hard facts and numbers, that they are not net beneficiaries of the program. Undoubtedly they pay their share of taxes and I have no problem with that. However they are net beneficiaries when it comes to the equalization program. The numbers are very clear.

Other than that the member was right on in his statements.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hardworking and faithful hon. member for Vancouver Island North. I could have used more adjectives, but I did not want them to go to his head. It is an honour to stand in the House to talk about Bill C-18, a very important bill, and to address at this stage the broader question of equalization payments and the meaning of them.

I cannot resist the temptation to lay down a bit of what one might call a philosophical foundation for the idea. That foundation is what we as Canadians believe in so strongly. We believe in community and sharing with those who have need. The Liberals have somehow exploited this in their communication pieces to try to pass it off to Canadians that they are the only ones who care. They certainly are experts at caring in one particular way and that is taxing Canadians to death, then deciding how they can distribute the money they have gathered together.

Just yesterday, without any previous debate or approval of the House, the Prime Minister declared some of his values in Toronto when he announced a $500 million program to aid culture in Canada. 180 I shake my head at that when we have that same government saying that it will not increase the ceiling for equalization payments to help provinces pay for hospitals, education facilities for students and things like that. The government is ready to give us $500 million more for its interpretation of what Canadian culture is.

That is a very narrow point of view of what it means to be Canadian and what it means to be community. Very frankly the cultures that I see across the country are many and varied. These cultures for the most instance are very able in representing themselves and thriving without the aid of a bunch of government grants.

In fact in my riding we have a large Ukrainian community that does wonderful things to promote its culture and to keep it and its language alive. I had a conversation not long ago, actually I guess it is over a year ago but at my age years fly into days or weeks, with several people from the Ukrainian community. They said we should support more cultural grants from the federal government.

I engaged them in a little debate and asked them where they thought the money came from. We talked about it a bit. I told them that we were overtaxed with the huge burgeoning bureaucracy that was involved in sending money to Ottawa and that the bureaucrats spun it through their centrifuges. A bunch of that money would spill over the edges but would never get to the target for which it is intended. Then finally some would go back to a select group chosen in some cases by the Prime Minister because, as I understood it, he had a lot of clout in cabinet. However if they did not happen to be one of those they would not get the money.

I was able to show them that we would all do a lot better if we could simply reduce our taxes. Then all of us in all our cultures could fund to our heart's content the Ukrainian schools, the German schools and other schools that we would have liked to have but were prohibited from because of the official program of the government of taking about half of everybody's earnings and distributing it according to its will.

I also say that in the broader sense of community I do not want to restrict my community just to the town near which I live, nor my riding. It is a wonderful riding. I welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to come and visit. We have a national park in our riding. It is called the Elk Island National Park, named after my riding. It is a wonderful place and great place to visit. I would not like to restrict my sense of community just to our province.

It was mentioned earlier today that Alberta in the last year or so had a very good economic picture because of the energy situation. I can remember back a scant eight years ago when that was not the case. Albertans were struggling with their education and health funding probably as much as anyone. We had tremendous challenges in the province to rationalize the delivery of the health care system. A lot of it was due to the fact that this federal government reneged on what was originally an agreement to pay for half of the health care for the provinces. Over the years it eroded it to a point where it was once again the responsibility of the provinces. However it never reduced the taxes it sucked out of our provinces to bring to Ottawa. Therefore, I feel the government funding of those programs was irresponsible.

My country is my community. I came to the House as a Canadian. I stand proudly when we sing the national anthem in the House. Some may remember that I was even unwittingly and unintentionally the centre of a lot of controversy a number of years ago when I insisted that there should be nothing wrong with my having a flag on my desk in the House of Commons. Ultimately, it was ruled not permissible. It was considered a prop, so I am without my Canadian flag. So be it.

However I am a proud Canadian and this is my community. I insist that we would do well by extending the word community across this whole country and that we provide the needed health care and educational facilities to our citizens, which are more or less equal, at comparable levels of taxation. However it is impossible to have them exactly equal as that is just a practical consideration but they should be as equal as is possible.

Again, it is worth drawing the attention of the members to the fact that this is in our constitution. If we look at the Constitution Act, 1982, we will find section 36. I am going to read it because perhaps some people have not heard it. It states:

Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

Then subsection 36(2) of our constitution states:

Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Although that was brought in by a Liberal government, it seems to me eminently fine. I have absolutely no problem with that particular clause in our constitution. It behooves us to make sure that Canadians across the country have comparably equal services at comparable levels of taxation.

However we need to make sure that there is not duplication. We must ensure there is efficiency in the delivery of those services. We must make absolutely sure that the provinces and the citizens in those provinces continue to have all the motivation in the world we can extend them to improve their situation, regardless of where that is. I insist our country would do best if we neither hung a milestone around the necks of those who are doing well as they will then do better, they will expand our economy and they will provide more jobs, nor leave destitute those whose needs are greater.

Quite clearly I could have spoken for longer but my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this important issue.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I would not have any objection if we went five or eight minutes longer to give other members an opportunity to speak.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I will ask some questions of the hon. member who just spoke. We have had some good times together on the finance committee. I will ask him the questions, but I will not give him an opportunity to answer because I am now speaking myself.

He may want to consider this. He said he ran on a party platform, as we did. There is certainly a lot of truth to that. The fact of the matter is that we deal with many issues in the House that are not the object of debate during an election campaign. It is incumbent on us, then, to make sure that we as individual members of parliament have the ear of our constituents so we can represent them in this place.

I have a very curious question for which I have never been able to get a decent answer, that is, how come we, on our opposition day, chose word for word a paragraph right out of the election platform of the Liberals which all of the Liberals on command then voted against? To me that contradicts what he said, but that is getting partisan and the whole tone of tonight is very non-partisan.

I already stated my case on private members' business earlier today during questions and comments. I also spoke when we had the debate some time ago. I would like to add a few things that I do not think I spoke about previously and that I think are relevant to your committee, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to committees, I have some really important points. I have enjoyed working on the finance committee. We have a good working relationship in the committee, but there are some real frustrations. First, the majority the government holds on the committee and the presence of the parliamentary secretary, who seems to direct the votes, are very frustrating.

I do not mind if I present my ideas and the people hearing those ideas reject them because they are not valid or I do not have a strong enough argument or I do not express them well enough. Then I lose that debate and the vote goes against me. That is fine.

However, when I present something in committee and can tell by the body language that the people agree with me—I taught for 31 years and learned when my students were with me and when they were not—but the parliamentary secretary opens his mouth and basically suggests to the members that they should vote against me and then they all do, I find it very frustrating. I do not know whether our standing orders can be changed to accommodate this frustration, but I certainly would echo what some of the other members have said and that is that perhaps the parliamentary secretary should not be on the committee acting as whip.

I found the process of the election of chairs very frustrating. I do not think it is right that all we get is a motion that so-and-so be elected and then we vote on that. Usually in elections there is a list of candidates. In meetings which we conduct under Robert's Rules of Order , we open the floor for nominations and accept all the names. Then there is a vote based on all of the names on the slate.

What happens too often in our committees here is that the instant the clerk of the committee, who chairs the committee until the chairperson is selected, says the meeting is constituted and we are accepting nominations, whoever yells the loudest gets recognized. I have noticed in the meetings I have been in that the clerk of the committee always has her face to the right so that she is looking at the Liberal members, whereas we on the other side are ignored.

As a matter of fact the last time we elected the chair of the finance committee I was prepared to nominate the person who won. That would have been a wonderful non-partisan effort to show that we were working together as a committee. We should have a slate of candidates and there should be a ballot, perhaps a run-off ballot. I would like it to be a secret ballot. The choice of the chairs of the committees should not be orchestrated from on high.

I am concerned about government control with its majority on committees. Some may say that the government has to have the ability to promote its agenda. That is true to a certain extent. I have had several experiences in my seven years where the committee chair has in my humble unbiased view made an error. I referred to this once or twice.

I brought one to the House as a point of order. A motion actually passed and the chairperson of the particular committee said that it had failed. I pointed out to the chairperson that only two people had said yes, that nobody had said no and that therefore the chairperson saying the motion had failed was the opposite to what it should be. Then we got into a bit of a shouting match because I did not accept the chairperson had the right to say that a motion had failed when in fact it had passed. Eventually in this case he went back to the rules and said that was his decision. Then he said “Shall the decision of the chair be upheld” and the majority on the government side said yes, the decision should be upheld, and so it was.

One cannot do that. One cannot do something that is against the rules of procedure in committee and then somehow justify it by getting other people who happen to be on one's side to back it up. I would like to see something in our standing orders which would allow an appeal for things like that to the Speaker or to the procedure and House affairs standing committee.

Committee travel was mentioned earlier. Sometimes our party, as the official opposition, has denied the right of committees to travel. I recognize that it is important for committees to travel, but very often the official opposition uses that as a bargaining chip when it wants something else. Often it is the recalcitrance of the House leader of the government that changes that.

I wish to say a little about free votes in the House. It is something that we should do. Even though the government ran on a platform, there are sometimes amendments which are needed to improve legislation. To always wholesale deny a motion, because it comes from opposition without in my view proper thought being given to it, is an affront to me as a member of parliament.

I would like to say something about the parliamentary calendar. I would like to see MPs have more days in the riding. I am one that is in this place way too much. I do not know why it is. Maybe I have a problem and should go to see a psychiatrist about it.

It reminds me of this lady that I have in my riding who is always watching CPAC. I asked her one day if she had any other medical problems. The parliamentary calendar should be changed because I would like to have more days in my riding, but I feel when the House is in session I have an obligation to be here. That is how it ought to be. Consequently I would like to see some change to in calendar to allow members of parliament more days in their ridings.

I would also like to suggest that we improve attendance in the House. I really would like to see members actively engaged in debate in the House, instead of just a token number of people. With committees running at the same time we are in committee and then we get a phone call in the committee room which says to get down here and make a speech. We come down here and make our speech on the topic, and we have not heard what other people have said. It is not a true interaction. It is not a true debate. It is a monologue that we deliver and then rush back to our committees. I would like to see some changes in that area.

I want to say one thing about time allocation and closure. The government holds the record on the number of times it has been used. That defeats what parliament is about. Parliament is about words. We use words to spread ideas. The clerk will know that I have stated to him some time ago that one of the flaws of this place is that we do not know how to use the language.

Language is the embodiment of the ideas that we have in our heads. I would like to see the rules on closure changed. The government should not be allowed to introduce closure or time allocation until a certain minimum period has been spent on a bill at each level.

On a number of occasions the government has moved time allocation at the report stage of a bill saying that the bill will go through all the remaining stages and will be finished at the end of the day. That is not adequate. We should have a minimum of one day to debate each stage of a bill, although I would like to see more.

I want to comment on bills going to committee before second reading. I find that unsatisfactory. It sounded at first to be so good, but we need to debate the principal of a bill before we send it to committee.

Finally, I have some question with respect to all the disallowed words. We as members of parliament should use our discretion and should be very careful when we condemn other members. However I personally find it an affront when other people do something and I am called out of order for having pointed it out. I resent the restriction on the words that we can use. Nevertheless, we should still be very honourable all the time.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to a couple of things. With respect to the number of hours required, I would point out to my colleague and to the other members that not all 301 members would have a private member's bill that they would want to put forward.

If we look at the order paper right now, and even the notices of bills, we find 25% of members at most have submitted private members' bills. The issue of how many people would have their name in the hat at any time is greatly exaggerated if we are thinking of 301 members. At most it would be 100 members, so that would alleviate the time.

I will repeat a comment that I made earlier today as the personalities in the House have totally changed. We should have a deal whereby nobody gets seconds until everyone has had firsts. That is the way we used to do it at camp. Everyone got through the line for food and no one went through for the second time until everyone had firsts. Can you see, Mr. Chairman, if I went through the second time? I always made sure that I got enough the first time.

That would be a good way of doing this. All members who have a private member's bill they would like to submit would present it as we do now. Their name would go into the hat. When there is a draw we would draw them but not put their name back until there are no names left. That way if other members have a bill then their name would go in the hat. Those that have their bills ready would be eligible for each draw until they are drawn. Once they are drawn then other members would take precedence over them.

I have said this before. The hon. member for Mississauga South has had five private members' bills drawn and I have had none, so it would increase the fairness.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. I respect the member. He is an accountant. There is no doubt in my mind that he is very concerned about government expenditures and the whole process of approval and accountability after the fact. However he dreameth in Technicolor. When the finance minister presents a budget most of what he says, in essence, is already law.

I remember that less than a year ago we had a bill in the House respecting the Budget Implementation Act that dated back 10 years. That is how far back we went in implementing a budget provision. Meanwhile, the finance department and the revenue department had been implementing those things per the date of the budget speech. The hon. member, like I say, dreameth in Technicolor when he thinketh that he can have any impact on that.

When it comes to vote on the budget, we have this arcane process that says that no government member can vote against the budget because it is considered a confidence vote. There is no mechanism in parliament now, according to the present rules, to change even the smallest part of the budget.

When it comes to the estimates, they are tabled in the House. We usually start the voting at 10 o'clock at night and by the time we are finished at 2 o'clock in the morning we have approved the expenditure of maybe $70 billion to $80 billion. It sort of rolls off our backs like water off a duck's back. There is never an adjustment.

I remember about three or four years ago our party made an amendment to change HRDC's budget to reduce it by $20,000, which in the grand scheme of things is like changing my budget by a penny or thereabouts. We said explicitly that it was for the purpose of making a statement to declare that parliament had final control over expenditures. Every Liberal member on command voted against that little amendment to change the budget, showing that parliament did not have control over the budget process.

While I appreciate what he just said, I wish him lots of luck. I hope he has lots of fun with his proposals and that the government House leader accepts his suggestions, because I favour what he has said. However I do not believe they will go anywhere.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

No, that is fine. I have some questions of the government House leader. I concur fully with the suggestion that perhaps members should be given one private member's option in a session. I think that would work.

I remember when we were kids at camp that nobody got seconds at the meal until everybody had firsts. Everybody could have firsts, and if there was some food left over we went back for seconds.

I have been a member for seven and half years, since the 1993 election, and I have never been drawn. It is just not my lucky lottery day, I guess. I have some good private members' bills that I would like to get on the floor and voted on. I feel that they are important enough for actual decision making.

The member opposite made that suggestion. I am ready to write the computer program. In fact I already have one. I recommend that we take all members and simply randomize their order. If members do not have a private member's bill or a motion and want to pass on it, they can let their name go to the bottom of the list, or maybe we could have a scheme whereby we could trade with others so that everybody would be involved in one rotation. There are other members in the House who have been picked three or four times in the last seven years. That is one correction I think would be really worth while.

Another one he mentioned was that we would not have enough time. Very frankly I would rather have one private member's bill every seven years and actually have it votable so that we can make a decision on it than have three or four that I can just talk about and never do anything about. I would not mind dealing with a reduced number of bills.

Furthermore, let us take for example the private member's bill we dealt with today. It was not votable, but surely after one hour of debate we pretty well all knew the issue. I do not think that it should take more than an hour or maybe an hour and a half of debate before it is sent to committee.

Private members' bills generally are quite focused. They are single issues. If we could send them to committee and then maybe have them come back for another hour debate in what would compare to third reading of another bill, I think it would really expedite the matter. Basically it would take the House two hours instead of one hour for one that we just debate and do not vote on.

We could also increase the number of hours. I have no problem at all with having an additional hour or two per week of private members' business. I have a little problem with some people who have suggested making Friday private members' day. That is really bad because it basically tells members it is an unimportant day and they do not need to be here.

As a matter of fact, if I can even be a little facetious, I have said to some people that I think it might not be a bad idea to make a member of parliament's salary in direct proportion to the number of hours he or she spends in the House while we are debating private members' business. If we were here 50% of the time, we would get 50% of our salary that month. That is a little facetious. It is not a serious suggestion.

I really think that some of the best ideas come forward from private members. They are the ones out there listening to their constituents. Those constituents have concerns. We start dealing with the bureaucracy and find out that we cannot solve their problems, so we come here with a private member's bill.

I would like the government House leader to respond to some of my suggestions.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I spent about six hours today in the finance committee so I was not here at that time.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I need a clarification. We are in committee of the whole which means that there is no time limit on speeches, except as regarding courtesy to each other. Also, we can speak as often as we wish. Am I correct in that or not?