Ken Epp

[Canada Communications Group, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently publicized internal memos have drawn the attention of Canadians to very unethical accounting practices between government departments and Canada Communications Group.

It is incredible that Canada Communications Group would enter into illegal contracts in order to hide money from the scrutiny and accountability of Parliament. We intend to hold the government accountable for this scandalous practice.

The ministers involved have promised a full investigation. We will be watching for the reports with great interest. I am informing the House, as I have informed the ministers, that should this investigation not provide full disclosure I will be calling for further public review before the government operations committee.

Our debt is currently $532,098,154,000 and has grown by $88,000 since I started speaking. We cannot tolerate any more mismanagement of our precious tax dollars.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stayed down long enough to give everyone else an opportunity. I really want to challenge that because it is undoubtedly true that if we do pursue this goal of national child care, nothing is going to do more to drive taxes up and put pressures on families higher. We are defeating ourselves and I strenuously object to that.

Certainly in the other areas, there are some families-I am thinking particularly of single mothers because we have so many of them now in our society-who have no choice. We must bend over backward to do what we can for them.

I do not, however, buy into the premise that the only way it can be done is by the taxpayer being plucked by the government to provide the service. There have to be many other ways to solve those problems.

Coming back to the bill that we are discussing, I would like to also say with respect to criminals that when they finish their time, we need to recognize that we are not going to put everybody in jail for life, no matter what they do.

I agree certainly that we must do something to get them ready to integrate back into society. Here again I would have a very good low cost solution to propose, particularly for people who are guilty of non-violent crimes. I would propose that they be placed into the keeping of good loving homes. It is a requirement. It is their sentence. They would spend their time there instead of in a jail so that they get a model of how life ought to be lived.

With that, I am going to quit this time. I promise.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of whether I could get up twice in these situations, so thank you for that lesson.

I am wondering if one of the pressures that we have control over-when I say we I mean the Government of Canada-is in the area of financial pressure. There are many parents who are forced to work because of the huge tax load they face among other things.

Perhaps what we need to do as a fundamental root, way down deep solution to this problem is to manage our financial affairs to reduce the tax burden so that in those families where those stresses occur they could be reduced. Perhaps those who choose could then remain home with their children to provide them with a good, secure, solid, loving environment in which to grow up.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a clarification with respect to allegations made toward the Reform Party's view of this.

I do not think that any of us have ever made the statement or even intimated that it is a simple thing, you just throw them in jail and throw the key away, as the hon. member stated. That is not an accurate description of the feelings or convictions of people in our party.

I challenge the member opposite to think about the real issues that are involved here as we are trying to do. How do you solve the problem of crime? One of the most fundamental areas in which we have failed our young people, who then become older and at whatever age become criminals, is that we are no longer strongly teaching them by example and by word what is right and what is wrong. I am finding that even in present law making there is this intimation now that we are going to have laws that will prevent parents from spanking their children.

I do not in any way condone violence against children but children will learn to obey and respect authority if they are taught in a loving way with firmness.

That is how I was taught and that is very important. That is where we need to work in order to empty our jails. We need to make sure we have strong, loving families. I would like to see this government really emphasize that end of it. Perhaps the member has some comments on what I have just said.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation just made by the member opposite. I share some of his concerns with respect to the legislation and the whole problem of how we solve the crime situation in the country. We have heard recently that the crime rate in Canada is now going down. If that is really true then we ought to be truly grateful.

I have concern with respect to the whole idea of probation and the elements of section 745. It seems to me that people who enter the criminal justice system are those who already are demonstrating they are not good in and of themselves or they have failed. Somehow it seems we have to kick in an extra gear of the administration of justice in this case so that they will learn the harder lesson they have failed to learn before.

I would really be interested in a comment from the hon. member. He indicated that he would like to see automatic parole at 15 years instead of merely the eligibility to apply for it despite the crime. It concerns me a great deal that there should automatically be a right to say: "My punishment is over even though I have taken someone's life". That is heinous and serious. We ought to be strengthening it rather than weakening it.

I would like to hear some further justification if he has it.

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I have one question that I would like to ask. It is whether or not he would favour extending the right of individual groups to sentence people in their own group to groups beyond the aboriginals?

[Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, mine is truly a point of order.

Standing Order 78 says explicitly that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties.

I submit that this action is not correct because we are still a party notwithstanding what is thought here and therefore this motion is not appropriate.

[Excise Tax Act, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's presentation.

My question is with respect to the statistics on the increase in cigarette smoking due to the reduction in the price which in turn was due to the reduction in the taxes. There are some who hold that this merely reflects the increase in the number of people who are now buying cigarettes legally who before were buying them on the black market.

Does the member have any statistics on that and if so, how were they derived?

[Lobbyists, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to offer that. I would like to know right now whether this government is ready to put some teeth into its actions at the level that it is proposing.

Many believe that the ongoing Pearson negotiations are at least as unethical as the original deal and that the negotiations now deserve to be investigated.

Can we have the assurance that the Prime Minister will direct the ethics counsellor to launch an immediate and total investigation into all of the Pearson negotiations with all of the findings to be made public?

[Lobbyists, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister announced the appointment of an ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor is merely a slight expansion of the assistant deputy registrar general's previous role; the same job, the same person, a new name.

The lobby reforms changed tier one and tier two lobbyists into consultant and organization lobbyists; the same role, a new name.

Does the Prime Minister or the deputy really believe that these cosmetic changes will solve the problems of influence peddling in government decision making?