Ken Epp

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have not often been getting up lately because I wanted to give our new young members the opportunity, like my colleague over there, but I cannot continue to sit when the Liberal member over there says that the bill would not get tough on crime and that he will vote against it because it is too tough.

The member needs to read the bill. The bill refers to the use of a firearm, not in duck hunting or deer hunting. It refers to the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence and the offences are listed. We have criminal negligence causing death, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. Those are things people are doing with firearms.

What are the minimum sentences to which he objects? For a second offence, provided it takes place within 10 years, the minimum sentence would now be three years. The member says that it is too tough. I am almost tempted to vote against the bill because it is too soft. I cannot imagine a guy assaulting my wife with a gun when I am not home and he only receives three years. I am almost tempted to vote against it but I will support it because at least it goes in the right direction.

I would like the member to explain how he can possibly justify to his family and to other people's families across the country voting against the bill because it is too tough. I cannot believe it.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think that you might find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we could proceed with private members' business.

[Criminal Code, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing comments from the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members which cause me a lot of problem. They are talking as though conditional sentencing is being removed by the bill. That is just simply not true. What the bill deals with is the mandatory imposition of minimum sentences for violent crimes.

I can think of situations. In Edmonton not very long ago four young thugs got on one of the rapid transit trains and killed one of the people on that train. That is a violent crime and for that there should be a minimum sentence. I cannot believe those folks over there are prepared to close their eyes to that. If they read the bill, they will see that the conditional sentences are still available for what we call the lesser misbehaviours. Why do they not simply tell the truth in their debates and deal with it properly?

[Alberta Economy, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Albertans are very grateful for the energy boom that we are experiencing. We are happy to share the benefits with our fellow Canadians. While some individuals, even some in this House, are clamouring for more, I would like to point out how magnificently all Canadians are benefiting.

All Canadians through the federal government are the largest benefactors. Just think of the truckloads of money that go to Ottawa every payday for EI and CP premiums. Just think of the train loads of money which go to Ottawa as a result of the income tax deductions from thousands of workers and professionals. Add to that the huge amount of tax that is paid by businesses and corporations. I estimate that Ottawa gets between two and three times as much as Alberta.

Besides that, the spinoffs for businesses right across the country are huge. For example, the demand that is generated for vehicles and other manufactured goods coming from Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces goes well into the billions.

Let us celebrate Alberta's success together. Let us all be grateful for the economic prosperity it generates for our country.

[Accountability Act, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to work on the special subcommittee that was charged with developing the code of conduct for parliamentarians. Never in our deliberations did we think that frivolous complaints to the Ethics Commissioner would reach the level that they now have.

Liberal members of Parliament have recently launched a number of frivolous and vexatious complaints. The purpose of the accountability act and the work of the Ethics Commissioner is to bring those into line who behave inappropriately, not to help promote the Liberal political agenda.

It is shameful of the Liberals to use this process to try to undermine the reputations of their political adversaries. Every one of their complaints has been found to be without ground when investigated. Could it be that they are using this tactic to deflect from the massive moral failure in their own camp when they were in power? Shame on them.

I hope the members for Ajax--Pickering, Malpeque and Beauséjour will act responsibly, support the accountability act and stop making these frivolous and unfounded allegations.

[Canada Evidence Act, May 19th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (interpretation of numerical dates).

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is one which I have introduced even before the year 2000 because I saw the impending doom of stating dates in numeric form and the ambiguity that this causes now in these years.

My wife went away and I cooked myself some macaroni and cheese. The date was wrong. The date was not given in the right format and I ate some rotten food. That is a true story.

The bill will correct that very disastrous situation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for that member, but she has again repeated a myth that many people are buying, and that is the Liberals somehow left this government in a wonderful financial position. I would like to set the record straight.

If we look at the financial accounts of the country over the years, we will find that the deficits were due totally to high interest payments in those years. We could probably fault the Conservative government of the day for not taking fast short term measures to reduce that debt and hence the interest payments. Instead, it addressed the long term problem and brought in a number of policies that the Liberal government, over the last 12 years, was able to use to reduce those deficits.

The Liberals did bring down the debt. After they let it go up about another $80 billion, they brought it down about the same amount. I believe that is right.

I see some members over there laughing. As I recall, when the Liberals took over in 1993, the debt was very close to $500 billion and it is still $500 billion. It did go up in the first three years of their regime and then it went down after that. It was a Liberal legacy that left us the debt. This government has actually addressed this issue.

To the credit of the Liberals of the day, they--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have been the member for Elk Island for almost all of its existence.

I want to challenge some of the things the member said. I would like to challenge a whole bunch of things but I will go to just one. He said that mandatory minimum sentences do not work but there is a lot of evidence that shows they do.

I will give a quick example. On Saturday, while I was driving down the road in my riding, there was a construction zone. In the past people would always pass other drivers in the construction zones. Some would go the reduced speed limit and others would just go zipping by. As a result of a number of highway workers being killed because of these people, the provincial government took the initiative to put up signs at these construction places stating, “Speeding Fines Doubled”. On Saturday, when I drove through that zone, not one person passed me while I was going the reduced speed limit through the construction zone.

Deterrents do work. I think it is rather specious of the member to just make a point blank statement that it does not make any difference and, therefore, why should we bother. It does in fact.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that by increasing the thresholds all Canadian families will be paying less income tax.

Under our plan there will be some 600,000 Canadians families off the tax rolls entirely, while the Liberals kept ripping them off. Even though they lived in poverty by the government's own definition, the Liberal government was still taxing them and charging them income tax. Under our plan, over 600,000 Canadian families will be off the tax rolls and that is a real benefit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. It is finally a compassionate Conservative government that is addressing the issues facing families.

The member said that these benefits are taxable and that there will be less in it. Many families do not pay income tax because they are living in poverty. The GST reduction benefits them because with what little money they have they will have less GST to pay.

The benefit of the new $100 child allowance is taxable but that is reasonable. If people are making enough money that they are in a high tax bracket, then that should be taxable income. Why should certain people not have to pay taxes on it? We have increased the threshold so the total tax bill will be less, notwithstanding what the member said.

The benefits and the tax rates that we get in this package actually result in less taxes being paid by every individual and every Canadian family in the country. The member across the way has his numbers wrong. The fact is that most people who will benefit from this will pay less taxes in total than they would have under the Liberal plan.