Ken Epp

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

You are the one who put it into the bill.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the following.

It seems to me there is one commonality between what is happening here and what has happened to the EI fund, namely, the government is raiding a surplus. In the case of the EI fund, it took the money away from employers and employees and it has absolutely no intention of giving it back. It just brings it into general revenue. Now it is raiding this fund.

I would like the hon. member to comment on how those two situations are similar and on any differences he might detect in them.

[War, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we were honoured yesterday morning to hear Kim Phuc at the parliamentary prayer breakfast.

She was burned by a napalm bomb during the Vietnam war and suffered terribly with burns all over her body. The picture of Kim running and crying became the symbol of the horrible suffering that children endure in war.

However she has found in the Christian faith the ability to forgive her attackers and tormentors. Her presentation was truly inspirational. She exudes grace.

Seeing the families of Kosovo on TV these days reminds me that my family escaped under similar circumstances. War and expelling citizens from their country is never an answer to problems. I am very grateful that my family also chose to exercise forgiveness. Even though my family lost everything in the old country, we had the opportunity to make a peaceful living in Canada.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the debate today has to do with pension funds for civil servants. The debate is all about who owns the money. There are people who say that it belongs to the taxpayers since all of the money comes from the taxpayers.

As members of parliament, we could quite rightly concede that all of our income and pension, those members who have a pension, comes from the taxpayers since that is where the money originates. One could argue that we earned it, in which case it belongs to us, but it did originate with the taxpayers.

One of the debates raging in the country between the unions, the taxpayers and the government is about who gets the money. Whose $30 million is it? Even for you, Mr. Speaker, that would be more than just your average weekend spending money. That is a lot of money.

Exactly where does the member stand on who gets the money? Is it fair for the government to claim that on behalf of taxpayers it is taking it? Does it all belong to the unions? Is there a split somewhere? What is his view on this?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think this works best at a younger age. At the beginning of my speech I said that the training of a young person to be a law-abiding citizen begins at age two days. Maybe we waited too long, but I think it is a lifelong thing.

I remember seeing a poster many years ago of a tree with one branch that was really crooked. The tree was beautiful except for that one branch and the caption read “As the twig is bent, so grows the child”. When we talk about restorative justice, I think the example I used from my own life illustrated that. I believe we have to captivate young people as early as possible. If we train them throughout life, both by word and by example in the family, in the school and in the church, to be moral, to put the needs of others ahead of their own and to be unselfish they will not grow up to be criminals. If they do make their own decisions later, the earlier the better to catch them and provide the opportunity for restorative justice, for restitution, for facing their victims and for giving them some solid role models to follow at that stage. I am absolutely convinced that is the way to reduce it, but I do not think we will ever get away from it entirely with human nature having a bit of a bad streak in it.

I reiterate there are some who progress despite all efforts into more and more serious crime. When an individual is found to be incorrigible we have an obligation, as stated in the principles of the Reform Party, to protect law-abiding citizens. If there is one who just will not obey the rules and who is doing worse and worse things to other people, to their person and to their property, we have to use that part of the law which restrains the evil doer.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very broad question which allows me to go off in almost any direction. I would reiterate that, first, we need to make sure our young people are taught a system of morality which holds up and is consistent. We have a moral void with all of this moral relativism in our society.

I also worked for many years on a board which ran a camp for young people, children and families. It was a great experience to get outdoors and go camping with these young people. When I worked there I was young myself. I am now getting on, by a few more years.

I believe that those are very important issues.

We have many volunteers in my riding who work with young people in sports programs, camping programs and all of those things. I think that prevention is absolutely mandatory.

We have to kick that into high gear. We have flagged on it. Our families are struggling. Many of them are in conflict because of high taxation. Both parents have to work even though they would choose not to if they did not have to. As a result our families are not as strong as they ought to be.

With respect to those who actually commit the crime, what do we do with them after? As I have said, we ought to hold them personally responsible, certainly if they are involved in things like trafficking in drugs which often happens. This is one of the motivators of crime. Many of our young people get hooked on different kinds of drugs. Because the people from whom they get the drugs are not about to donate them, they go about financing it by break and enters and all sorts of things.

This is perhaps a novel way of handling them, but I would get them out into the woods. I would take them out to a camp; I really would. I am not talking necessarily of a strict boot camp but there would be some discipline. These young people would have to learn that there is an authority structure to which they have to submit themselves. Otherwise we have chaos in the country. We are all subject to authority. They too are subject to authority. The faster they learn that, the better off they will be and the better off we will all be.

I would provide work experience. I know of a person who does this in his work with Manitoba justice. They actually bring young offenders to a place where they are under their care and keeping 24 hours a day. They provide work for these young men. They are chopping firewood. They get to do things that are useful. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. They actually work for their food. It is a great way of steering them away from the crime they have entered into.

In all cases there is not a perfect success rate, but they have at least as high a success rate as the ones who simply go to prison and learn from the pros.

We would do well in the justice systems in the different provinces if we expand the use of smaller groups such as that. It probably would not cost as much as running our prisons and we would have a much higher degree of success.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent the people of Elk Island in today's debate.

It is a very solemn debate. We are talking about issues of life and death. We are talking about families that are grieved because they have been victims of crime. Their children and loved ones have been hurt or murdered. We also need to think of those who are family members of the persons who perpetrate the crimes. I do not know whether many people have thought of it this way.

I will not mention specific cases but there have been a number of really difficult criminal acts committed in Canada over the last number of years, even since I was first elected in 1993. One of the most grievous ones was the young man, whose name I do not want to put into my mouth, who used the young girls he captured as sex toys and then found his ultimate pleasure by watching them die and videotaping it. Many of us know him as Paul. It was dastardly, unbelievable and totally unacceptable.

People have come to our parliamentary committee and have made presentations to say that they want some greater involvement. They want their rights protected when the law deals with the perpetrators of these crimes. I know there is a balance to be reached here. Some of these families struggled for years in their search for closure.

I think of a young family in Winnipeg whose daughter was murdered in winter. They did not find her for a number of weeks. When they did, she was in an abandoned shed. She had been strangled and left there in the cold. The murderer has never been found. How that family has dealt with that is actually the subject of the book Have you seen Candace? I remember being grieved about that murder because my brother-in-law knew the family and spoke about it.

I think of other situations where people do unspeakable things, some so heinous that we do not want to even speak about them. There are other things as well that people do which are illegal.

This is a day of celebration in the House for an accomplishment. There has been a little bit of a debate about whether or not this issue would be on the table here today were it not for the fact that the official opposition, and in our position as third party in the previous parliament, has been relentless in bringing this issue forward. All governments prior to this one had never thought it an issue important enough to bring to this place.

The very fact that it appears we now have near unanimity among all parliamentarians from all of the different parties to support this bill should give us cause to celebrate. It is an advance we are making on behalf of all of the hurting innocent victims of crime.

The Reform Party to which I belong is now 10 years old. One of the things that attracted me to the Reform Party was its statement of principles. One of them in justice which grabbed my attention was the fact that in principle, the expedition of the judicial system should be that of giving priority to the protection of the lives, the property and the well-being of law-abiding citizens.

If I may be permitted to quote, and I know one of my colleagues was called on using a prop earlier today, so I am going to be very careful to hold this book so the camera cannot pick it up. No one can see the cover of the blue book from which I am reading:

The Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives.

That is real novel, but it is what happened when our party in its formation listened to what we so affectionately call the grassroots. Ordinary Canadians told us the administration of justice in this system is skewed in that the victims are dead last in terms of what concern is expressed by the justice system and the government.

My colleagues earlier today have reiterated the cases where the perpetrator of the crime has all kinds of counselling and help available while the victims of the crime have to pay for it themselves. In many cases they cannot afford it and have to go without. Those are the kinds of things we need to correct if we want to call ourselves a civilized law-abiding country.

I am very happy this is happening here today. It is a step in the right direction. It is one which is long overdue, 10, 20, 30 years overdue. I am very proud to be a part of the process which has made this happen.

Item C in our blue book, which again I will hold very carefully as I read from it, states that the Reform Party supports granting victims of crime official standing in court and parole hearings, and requiring courts and parole boards to review victim impact statements before sentencing. To the greatest extent possible victims should be compensated by offenders for financial loss resulting from criminal acts.

One of the items in that part of our blue book will be adopted if the bill is passed, and we anticipate that it will be, and that is the use of victim impact statements. I am very grateful that I have never had the experience of being the victim of a severe crime. I have been the victim of minor crimes, but no major crimes. I cannot imagine the feelings and the emotions that families go through when they deal with serious crimes.

There is no doubt in my mind that the action we are taking today of providing for impact statements and allowing victims to make the decision themselves as to whether someone will read it into the record of the court or whether they will present it themselves is a tremendous step forward. Many people who are victims of crime will testify to the fact that they feel left out. Their son or daughter is gone, has been murdered, abused or injured, and during the court proceedings they are relegated to strictly spectator status. With this bill they will finally be heard. Their story can be told. It can be entered into the record.

I know there are some judicial purists, maybe even some in the House—and I will be careful in which direction I direct my gaze when I say this—who would say “We ought not to be making judicial decisions based upon emotions; they should be based on facts”. That is certainly true. I do not believe that people should be convicted of crimes of which they are innocent simply because the crowd in the town thinks they have the right perpetrator and because of the high emotions of the time they say that the accused is guilty and they have their revenge. Of course we do not want that.

That is not what this talks about. The actual determination of the guilt or innocence of the person who is accused takes place before the victim impact statements are entered into the record. It is proposed that this be done at the time of sentencing so that the judge can take into account what the actual impact has been on the victims of this criminal act. I think it is a very great step forward.

With respect to the second point, we also think that victims should be compensated by offenders. This is one area in which I think we should do a great deal. As far as I know, it is not in Bill C-79. I may be wrong, since I am not an expert on this, but from the notes that I have gathered the question of compensation for non-violent crimes is not included.

I want to share a little knowledge that I have in dealing with young offenders, people who perform what we call petty crimes, but which to the victims are pretty serious. I am talking about things like breaking and entering, robberies, sometimes vandalism.

We should place into law the principle of restitution. There is nothing more effective for a young person or any other person who has committed a crime to come to grips with and accept responsibility for what he or she has done than to have them sit down across the table from the person they have victimized, look them in the eye and say “Yes, I did it”.

I have talked to people who have worked in the so-called restitution area with young offenders. When young people realize how they have offended someone else, who at the time was a faceless non-entity but is now a real person, it can very often turn their lives around. They realize that what they did was wrong. They accept responsibility for it and they make some kind of a deal so they can provide restitution.

I do not know if this is the time for me to make a public confession of my criminal life. I suppose I should tell the House about the one thing I did. Maybe there were two, but I can only remember one. It was definitely questionable, but it was an important turning point in my life.

I was a youngster of probably 10 or 11 years old. We lived out in the country in Saskatchewan. We had some people living on our yard whom my family had sponsored to come over from the old country. They were called displaced persons at that time. Some thought that was a derogatory term. I always thought it was a badge of honour, since they were survivors of some very difficult circumstances.

There were about three or four of us young fellows. I think I was the youngest of the group. We went for a little bicycle ride out in the country and we came across an abandoned farmyard. I do not know who started it. I do not think it was me. However, there was an empty farmhouse and there was gravel on the road. Gravel contains little rocks and little boys like to throw little rocks. Much to my regret, when we left the yard there was not a single window left intact in that house.

My father is a very wise man. He found out about it. Even though this happened decades ago, it is as vivid as if it happened yesterday. My dad said to me “We shall have to go and talk to Mr. Sawatsky about this”. He was the man who owned the property.

Dad and I went. I do not know what the other guys who were involved did, but I was involved. I will not say that my father made me, but he told me “When we go there this is what you will do”. We practised it. When we got into the yard I had to look Mr. Sawatsky square in the eye and say to him “I am the one who broke your windows. I am sorry and I want you to forgive me. We will replace the windows and I will pay for them”.

That lesson I value highly. I thank my father for doing that for me when I needed it. Who knows, maybe he steered me away on that day from a life of crime. If one starts there, who knows what will come next. Forcing me to go face to face with the person whom I had wronged to ask forgiveness, admitting that I had done wrong and offering restitution, was exactly the right solution.

I wish we had more dads who would do that with their boys, and maybe their daughters. We understand that there are now more and more young girls who are getting involved in some of these crimes. I wish there were more dads who would do that with their boys; steer them in the right direction, teach them what is right and what is wrong, and show them how to solve it when they do something like that.

I wish that Bill C-79 would also include the principle of restitution as a way of dealing with crime. In this bill we are dealing mostly with victims of severe crime, and there is no way to restore a person's life.

I think of the guys in Edmonton who a punched the eyes out of one of their victims. There is no way that young man's vision can be restored. He is blind for life. His eyes are gone. There is no restitution available. There has to be punishment for them.

However, for the smaller crimes, especially those committed by young fellows who are bored, we need to have those individuals face up to their responsibilities.

Perhaps I have a slightly novel approach to this. As many people have said, we need to look at the prevention of crime. I believe that starts when a youngster is approximately two days old and continues through their lifetime, through adolescence right up to adulthood. I believe that we should build morality into our young people. Sometimes I hear, especially from the Liberals and the NDP, that poverty causes crime. I do not buy that.

When I was young we were very poor. We did not think of robbing other people and getting into crime because we were poor. I know that we need to do everything we can to alleviate poverty. There is no doubt about it. I am not arguing that. However, I will not concede to a person that being less well off than someone else gives them the justification for crime, any more than it does for me and my children because we have neighbours who are a lot richer than we are. That just does not wash.

We need to get down to some really solid principles. I am glad for the principles of justice which are contained in the Reform Party document. There is a whole list of them. I read only two. I would encourage all members of the House to get hold of the blue book policies of the Reform Party and read them. They make eminently great sense. That is one of the things that drew me to this party and that is why I am so very happy to be part of this process today because we are making progress.

I congratulate all members for what I expect will be unanimous support.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what the hon. member is telling us today because it is so germane to the subject at hand. I would like to hear what he wanted to say before his time ran out.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate today. We are discussing the impact crime has on people who are the victims of criminals and criminal acts.

While my colleague was speaking I realized that pretty well every speaker had said something about sentencing as well as the rights of victims. Although the bill does not address the question of sentencing, which is an entirely different matter, it seems it is one of the areas in which victims often feel greatly victimized because they lose so much.

A rape victim, the family of someone who is murdered, the family of the person killed or severely injured by a drunken driver, all these people are victims. It seems as if the person who perpetrates the crime gets away with a substantially inadequate sentence. In a way that gets into the realm of the rights of victims to see that justice is done, to see that there is a penalty commensurate with the act which has taken place.

Does my colleague, the critic of the justice department for our party, have any insights into how it impacts on the rights of victims when they are victimized by criminals?

[Committees Of The House, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need clarification. I was not paying close enough attention and I want to know which report number it is.