Ken Epp

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2007]

That was Trudeau's deficit.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek it, you would have absolutely no objection to seeing the clock as 5:30 p.m. so we can proceed to private members' business.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the orator here just said was that he wanted to know of some experts anywhere who are knowledgeable and who support our policies. I would like to read a few quotes that I happen to have here. Here is one: “The [tax] system works only when all Canadians are paying their fair share”. Who said that? It was the member for Markham—Unionville, the one who just spoke.

Here is another one: “I am committed to ensuring a level playing field for all Canadians, and that is why I take the issue of tax havens seriously”. Who said that? It was the member for Markham—Unionville.

Here is another one: “Our tax system relies fundamentally on voluntary compliance...One of the reasons people may become less willing [to pay taxes] is if they see others getting away with not paying their fair share”. Who said that? It was the member for Markham—Unionville.

Just three days ago he said on the CBC that the finance minister said that we should go after abuses by tax havens and double-dipping. He agreed. He welcomed the finance minister going after abuses like tax havens and double-dipping. That is the member for Markham—Unionville. What other experts would he like to hear besides that?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that all members present would be delighted to give unanimous consent that we see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member accused me of not knowing what I was talking about when I compared their stand against mandatory minimum sentences, which would take away the discretion of the judge, and their support, as they have stated several times here, for making it mandatory for the crown to make this provision, in other words, instead of having them say that it is possible to do it, it must be done. This has nothing to do with the judge.

I do know what I am talking about. This has to do with the legislation and the proposed amendment where they want to change it, and it is inconsistent.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find there to be a curious inconsistency in the Liberal thinking.

In some of the other bills that we have been discussing, vis-à-vis mandatory minimum sentences, for example, the Liberals have been adamant that we ought not to give the judge that discretion, and yet now they are saying that they want to take away from the crown prosecutor the discretion of whether or not to bring forward the designated dangerous offender status for a convicted person.

I would like to know why they are willing to give discretion in one case but quite adamant to take it away in this case.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the most recent conversion of Liberal members to getting tough on crime, or at least they like to take on the language. Now Liberal members are expressing these big concerns, but they are apt to do that.

Surely, the Supreme Court of Canada would guarantee the freedom of person to Canadians to not be threatened by serious criminals. We have people who use explosives and firearms. We have people who sexually exploit a person with a disability. We have people who procure sexual activity, especially with children. These are very serious crimes.

I would like to recommend to the Liberal Party that it is time that we, as parliamentarians representing our constituents, stand up and stand up strongly for putting away serious offenders for the protection of society. We need to start pushing on that. We need to make sure that Canadians recognize what is being done here. It is time that we stop hiding behind the charter in our quest for protecting the rights of the charter for law-abiding citizens.

I am really perplexed by all of the different reasons those members come up with for not supporting this bill in its present form.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I recognized in his speech that my colleague has taken on a real mission here in order to support this bill and what it represents. I would like to say that he is not alone. There are very many of us who have had a number of calls from our constituents and indeed letters from people right across this country who want to see the law strengthened in this particular instance.

Today during this debate a number of members of other parties have been taking what I think are very cheap shots at the intent of this legislation. They have been very vocal in some of their expressions of doubt about whether or not it is a good bill, whether or not it is going to accomplish what it says, and also that it threatens certain of the freedoms they want to have.

I would like my colleague, if he would, please, to just comment on whether or not in his view this is a bill that is worth supporting and what his main reasons would be for that support.

[Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending the annual Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast this morning. It was absolutely inspiring. Besides hearing beautiful music and having representatives from all parties participate in reading of the scripture, we were all greatly touched by the story told by our guest speaker, Mr. Serge LeClerc.

In his words, Serge was the product of rape, born to a young Cree girl who was only 14 years old. His life story, with all the pain he endured during his growing up years, was painful to hear. He became involved in drugs and organized crime and spent a number of years in jail.

While in jail he was visited by a dedicated Christian who reached out to him in love. As a result, Serge experienced the life-transforming grace that can come only from God and his life was turned around. He also received a pardon from the government and is now working full time with an organization, Teen Challenge, that helps young people break free from the bondage of drug addictions.

It was a truly inspiring event.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I hear with interest the argument, always from the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, that incarceration is not a deterrent to the commission of crime.

However, I would like to ask the member, if a criminal in the act of doing a crime thinks he is not going to caught, would the member then support added resources for our law enforcement agencies so that word would get out that the probability of being caught has skyrocketed? Would that have an effect? Or does he really believe it would make no difference?

When I was driving down the highway the other day, I drove into a construction zone. I noticed a big sign that said the speed limit was 60, because we do not want to injure the workers building the highway. There was another sign that said in great big letters that “speed fines double”. That was the only time when I was going the speed limit that no one passed me. It seems to me that the fear of being caught, and the penalty attached to it, is in fact a deterrent.

I would like my colleague to comment on those ideas.