Ken Epp

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get into that guy's head a little. He is saying that this bill is going to be subject to a charter challenge and the Supreme Court may shut it down. Is that not exactly where we are right now? If the bill is ultra vires, then we would have no act proclaimed. I do not understand how we should not, as members of Parliament, try to put a stop to these dangerous repeat offenders. I do not understand that. We need to try. If the court rules that it is not legal, then we will try again. Meanwhile, this is a good shot at it.

The member is expressing some opinions that some lawyers will take this to court. I think there are just as many lawyers who will say we will win it, that it is legal. I think he is just fearmongering.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the 20-minute speech by the member from Quebec. I think he may be missing the point, and perhaps his whole party is missing a very serious aspect to this bill.

We are not talking here about a reverse onus in terms of the conviction for the offence. Indeed, what we are doing is giving the perpetrator yet another chance. All the member has to do is read the bill. I noticed in several sections, but it is in proposed section 752.01 where it says:

If the prosecutor is of the opinion that an offence for which an offender is convicted is a serious personal injury offence that is a designated offence and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a designated offence--

We are talking about an individual who was charged and convicted. In other words, the crown prosecutor was able to prove that the individual was guilty, otherwise he would not have been convicted. The onus was on the crown to prove the conviction. The second time the individual appears, after he has served his two years or more, on a similar type of crime, again the crown proves that he is guilty and hence he is sentenced. He then comes before the judge a third time. The whole trial has to do with whether the person is guilty, and the onus is on the crown to prove it. The conclusion will be, if this bill is enacted, that that person just is not learning his lesson and he is a continued danger to society.

I would urge the member to read the offences that are being included here. We are talking of crimes as heinous as committing murder, discharging a firearm with intent; in other words, an individual fires a gun at someone and has the misfortune of missing, but still the individual is firing a gun at a person with the intent to murder. We are saying that for a person who has three of these offences, for the protection of society we are going to put that person in jail, but notwithstanding that, we will give that person yet another chance. If that person can prove to us that he or she is not a danger, we will listen.

I do not know how any member in this House can say that that is really tough, that we are getting too tough on crime. The NDP and the Liberals ran on a crime ticket last time just to try to gain a few more seats, and now that the election is over, they are arguing against a bill that is as soft as this one. I cannot believe it.

This legislation is reasonable. It is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says clearly that the causes here can be given as pertaining to a just society. I would just urge the member and all members to think carefully before they vote against this bill. It is not nearly as onerous as they claim it is.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Yes, I am getting old, Mr. Speaker. There are only five MPs in this House who are older than I am, so I will take my time getting up.

The member opposite, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, misses a whole bunch of points. One thing he said, to which I took great offence, was that he mentioned that our party just wants all of them to go to jail. This is not accurate. It is a downright misrepresentation. I will tell him personally and all who are in the House and anybody else who will listen that I think the saddest thing in the world is for people to get into in crime and end up wasting their lives in jail. That is absolutely true.

There is a maximum security institution in my riding. I visited it a number of times even before the boundary changes put it in my riding. It is incredibly sad in there. No one knows how I wish that every one of those people, mostly young people, although some are older, would have had a decent, moral education when they were growing up so that the type of activity they were involved in was just so wrong they would not contemplate doing it.

Where do we get the idea that it is all right to bludgeon a person to death? We get that in our society. Where does that come from? That would be impossible for me. I venture to guess that it would be impossible for my children because of what we have taught them about what is right and what is wrong.

I think that is the part that is missing in our society. In regard to anything moral, we have decided that we cannot impose our morals on anybody. However, we impose morals on people when somebody comes up to a member of my family and kills them. That has happened. It is not acceptable. That is an imposition of morality. Teaching of a morality and having them make their own choices because they have been taught correctly is valid and good.

I take great umbrage at that remark of the member.

I went to a youth incarceration centre and saw 13 year olds and 14 year olds who were there because they knifed somebody. Where did they get that idea?

This is not the venue in which we can contemplate this, but I absolutely believe that we need to do more to prevent people from going to jail.

When they do go to jail, we give them a sentence and we say, “Yes, they have another chance”. They go out and do it again and we say, “Okay, one more chance”. We are talking about serious crimes here, not just petty theft or things like that, as bad as that is. We are talking about attacks on human beings, brutal attacks. We are saying to them that obviously after someone has been convicted the third time, that person is a dangerous offender. Unfortunately, as much as we regret it, we tell criminals that for the good of society and the protection of law-abiding citizens, they are going to find some way to spend their lives usefully behind bars because we cannot trust them.

To me that is dreadful, but it is a valid choice we have to make if we are going to have a society in which our citizens feel safe.

The member is just wrong in his approaches and some of his statements.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a member opposite has mentioned that I am a little slow getting out of my chair--

[Justice, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of our five election priorities was to get tough on crime. Following through on our promise, our Minister of Justice has brought forward a number of bills to toughen up Canada's anti-crime legislation.

Can the government House leader please update the House on what he is doing to move forward on this important aspect of the government's agenda?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

They sure do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued with a debate on whether or not things can happen if the government does not pay for them. I am of the belief that they could happen.

When I was a youngster, which was many years ago, decades ago, there was very little government programming. Yet, when there was a need in our community, it pulled together. We helped voluntarily, sometimes at an expense and sometimes only the expense of time. I know I learned from my father and my mother that when someone was in need, we reached out and helped them. I believe in that principle. That is why I personally get involved as much as I can in the lives of individuals who are in need.

I think there is a difference in philosophy here. That is, for example, if one says if we do not fund the women's group, which the hon. member mentioned, then somehow the government is against them. That is a false assumption.

Also, I distinctly remember that the Liberal government, when it was in power, denied women's groups. I will mention specifically REAL Women. That group was not eligible for funding. Why were the Liberals against those women?

Personally, I would not even lay the accusation that the Liberals were against women with the kinds of ideas that that particular group showed. However, the Liberals did not fund them.

Why does the opposition now lay the charges at us that somehow because the government does not fund a particular group, that the government is against them? That is a false assumption.

I would also like to say that if it is true that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women represents, as it claims, all the women in this country, then all that group would have to do, and I think there must be at least 8 million adult women in this country, that would be my estimate, is have each woman donate a dollar. Then the group would have $8 million. This would be more money than the group could ever spend.

I think if people really believe in the Status of Women then they would fund it. I have had a number of women on different occasions say that the Status of Women does not represent them. I say that is their choice. Why should these women through their taxes be obliged to support a group that does not represent them?

I know I have gone on a rambling scheme here. I want to assure the member that simply because the government does not think the taxpayers should be funding a certain segment of any group, that the government is automatically against that group. We feel that the taxpayers should not be funding that group.

[Chemistry Day, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association to Ottawa for its annual Chemistry Day. It represents 70 companies and $26 billion in annual sales.This sector knows how to reduce emissions.

While Kyoto calls for a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2010, Canada's chemical producers will have achieved an incredible 56% reduction. By 2010 their production will have increased by 26%, which means that emissions reduction per unit of output will be a monumental 65% better than the Kyoto goals. They will do even more as new technologies come on stream.

Our new Conservative government policies will provide the foundation for this continued high performance industry to thrive in the spirit of the clean air act.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that has to do with the sound system. We are getting both the French and the English. For us unilingual Canadians, it is rather difficult to understand the bills that the member is introducing.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are losing sight of something that is important here and that is the magnitude of the problem.

The member opposite talked about usurious interest rates and the member for Winnipeg Centre before him talked about the way credit card companies are ripping us off.

Let us take an interest rate of 18%, which is the rate of a typical credit card. I would like to ask the member this. Let us say he was walking down the street and a stranger approached and said, “Will you lend me $100 and a month from now I will give you $101.50, if I happen to show up, with no security?” Would he lend the stranger the money? I suspect he would not. Yet to charge $1.50 on a $100 loan for one month is 18% per annum.

I think we need to get away from the idea that the fee charged is a straight interest charge. We know that many short term loans go into default, so the money is gone. These companies do not get the $101.50. They do not get the original $100 back. It is gone. For them to charge a little more because of the risk of the situation I do not think is terribly unreasonable.

Furthermore, to charge $2 for a $100 loan for a month hardly covers the cost of the employees and certainly not the cost of the store for which they have to pay rent, utilities, taxes and so on. They are going to charge maybe $2 or $3 for a $100 loan for a month. That is a service they are providing. If we take that away, then our poor people have nothing.

I have other questions, Mr. Speaker, but just from your posture of sitting on the edge of the chair I know I have to shut down for now.