Ken Epp

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the support from all members of the House, in my estimation, some 20% of eligible voters voted for the Liberal Party. It was 20% if we factor in the percentage that voted in the general election and the percentage that voted for the Liberals. The same is true for the NDP.

Based on the feedback we have had and the literal outpouring of concern by citizens right across the country through emails, petitions, phone calls, faxes and meetings, I contend that this is a big issue--I have been invited to a number of meetings and rallies--and it is an offence to the Canadian people to so ruin the democratic process that they are not listened to.

Furthermore, I venture to guess that the proportion of people in the Liberal Party who support this would be much closer to the proportion in the general population if they were actually able to represent the wishes of their constituents. I cannot believe that those who are ready to vote in favour of Bill C-38 are totally immune from these presentations.

I was asked about questions 41 and 42. First, why was the definition of marriage clearly upheld in 1999 but now is under attack? To me the answer is very simple, that is, the Liberals, and especially the Deputy Prime Minister, who is famous for that speech she made in 1999, did not speak from conviction at that time or else they would not have changed their convictions. I think that is basically the answer.

Why is the Prime Minister so determined to jam this bill through? I think it is simply because the Liberals know they are going to be punished at the polls if it is still on the books. They want to get it out of the way and hope that voters will forget. I trust, however, that the voters will remember and will say that they are going to turf these Liberals because they are doing the wrong thing here.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to address Bill C-38 in order to filibuster or obstruct Parliament, as some contend. I rise to speak in order to change the minds of those who would vote in favour of this bill.

I sincerely and profoundly want Bill C-38 defeated. I represent millions of Canadians who do not want this bill passed. I represent millions who believe that marriage is and should remain as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

It is undoubtedly unrealistic of me to expect that every member of Parliament will take a copy of my speech and before he or she goes to bed tonight will read and ponder what I am about to say. I probably kid myself into believing that each one will thoughtfully ask himself or herself the pertinent questions which I am going to pose.

Instead of restating the positions which I have already articulated in my previous speeches on this topic, I am going to ask a series of questions which I challenge others to answer honestly, to put aside prejudgments on these questions and to try desperately to think of these things on a deep level.

Here are the questions. They are not in any particular order. I just wrote them down as they came to mind.

Question 1: Am I ready to undo the traditions and teachings which have directed societies and nations over many millennia?

Question 2: Am I ready to contribute to a weakening of the family unit as it has come to be understood and sought after by generations of people in history?

Question 3: If I have a belief in God as taught by my religion, am I ready to go 180 degrees against the teaching of my religion?

Question 4: If I have no professed religious belief, am I ready to undo thousands of years of tradition and history?

Question 5: Why is it necessary to so profoundly offend the millions of Canadians who, from either a religious or non-religious basis, do not want to have the definition of marriage redefined?

Question 6: Have I read and studied with an open mind the hundreds of studies which show that children raised in families with their biological mother and father do best in all defined measurable categories?

Question 7: Do I really believe that it is in Canada's best interest to promote the increase of families which do not have a mother and father present for the development of the children?

Question 8: Am I ready to say to children brought into these homosexual unions that they may never know their biological roots, being denied forever the knowledge of either their biological father or mother?

Question 9: Am I ready to say to every person so raised that they do not have the right to determine their genetic heritage?

Question 10: Have I asked myself why in this debate the only questions of equality are for the equality of homosexuals, instead of the broader question of equality for all relationships, including non-sexual relationships?

Question 11: What are the actual benefits to society to have the traditional definition of marriage nullified?

Question 12: What benefit is there to the children involved in society as a whole if we transmit the message that fathers do not matter, or mothers do not matter?

Question 13: Is it really true that there are no consequences to a child being raised in a home where only one gender is represented in the parentage?

Question 14: Will this redefinition assist or hinder young people in gender identity issues?

Question 15: How will children in these relationships have any hope whatsoever of learning the roles of males and females when they are not being modelled for them?

Question 16: Why did members of the Liberal Party do a 180 degree reversal of their position of supporting the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others, as demonstrated in their 1999 speeches and vote?

Question 17: Were the Liberals right then and wrong now, or were they wrong then and right now?

Question 18: Why would the Deputy Prime Minister, then minister of justice, speak so eloquently that the equality issues can be addressed without redefining marriage if she did not believe it?

Question 19: Is there some concern about the hidden agenda in the Liberal Party when it promised right before an election, “It is not the intention of this government to change the definition of marriage,” and then after the election do the precise opposite?

Question 20: Why will the Prime Minister not permit a free vote on this important issue for all members in his party, including cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries?

Question 21: Is it not important to hear the thousands of Canadians for whom this is a very important issue and to seek a compromise solution that avoids offending deeply so many good citizens of our country?

Question 22: Is it not a bit of a hollow promise on religious freedom if in the very vote on the issue Liberal members are not permitted to exercise their religious freedom and conviction?

Question 23: If their position on this bill is so right, then why can they not trust their members to vote correctly, without coercion?

Question 24: If this is truly a human rights issue and there are apparently some 30 or more members in cabinet or in parliamentary secretary positions in the government, why are these intolerant members permitted to continue in their positions?

Question 25: Why is the government giving false assurance of religious freedom when we already have a number of cases in which people with religious faith or leaders in religious organizations are being hauled before various tribunals and in some cases are being punished?

Question 26: Is there not a concern regarding the loss of individual religious freedom when this bill addresses only the apparent freedoms of religious organizations? I emphasize the words “individual religious freedom”.

Question 27: Is there not a concern with the fact that the Supreme Court, in its reference, ruled that religious freedom in the sense anticipated by the bill is not within the federal jurisdiction to grant?

Question 28: What about the marriage commissioners in British Columbia and Saskatchewan who have been given notice to solemnize same sex marriages or lose their credentials? What about their religious freedom?

Question 29: What about individuals like the teacher in B.C. who was suspended from his position solely on the charge of expressing his personal opinions in letters he wrote to newspapers?

Question 30: What about the individual in Saskatchewan who lost a case in which he was charged with quoting the scriptures?

Question 31: What about the Catholic school board that was forced to go against the teachings and beliefs of the church at a recent graduation ceremony?

Question 32: What about the mayor of a major Ontario city who was fined for not promoting a teaching that was against her religious beliefs?

Question 33: What about the religion based camp in Manitoba that was charged because it refused to go against the convictions and beliefs of its supporting members?

Question 34: Is it a concern that the democratic process is being trashed?

Question 35: Why are the million or so names on petitions presented in this House being ignored?

Question 36: Why are members of Parliament being bullied into voting opposite to the wishes of their constituents?

Question 37: Why was the justice committee of the last Parliament shut down before being permitted to report and the present special committee totally stacked with individuals on one side of the debate, having its work truncated in order to ram this legislation through?

Question 38: Why is this issue so urgent that it justifies an extended session of Parliament into the summer?

Question 39: Is part of the tactic to push it through quickly, using the excuse that members must get back to their commitments in their ridings and other parts of the country?

Question 40: Why is it so important to stifle the opposition to this bill?

Question 41: How come, in 1999 and previous votes, the traditional definition of marriage was clearly upheld and now, just a few years later, it is under attack?

Question 42: Why is the Prime Minister so determined to jam this bill through quickly? It is because he hopes the voters will forget by the time of the next election?

Question 43: If this approach in social policy is so defensible, why is there such fear that the voters of the country will react negatively against the Liberal government?

These are important questions and they demand honest answers. I fear that many members have been bullied or deceived into supporting this legislation. In my view, this legislation is wrong. We should do the country and its citizens a huge favour by defeating it and getting the solution to these problems right.

I urge all members to support the amendments which address these serious questions and to vote against Bill C-38. We must do what is right. We must defend the family, moms and dads and the social order which has stood the test of time and history. Let us not go down the wrong road at this time and then have to deal with the consequences in generations to come.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently with the good work of our interpreters to the words spoken by my colleague from the Bloc. I always say that I appreciate the work of the interpreters because being a unilingual Canadian I can only communicate to those hon. members via the work of the interpreters.

My question for the member has to do with the framing of this debate on an issue of equality, which is the only argument I have heard from the other side that bears any weight at all, and yet the issue of equality has not been addressed since it is only equality for homosexuals engaged in conjugal activity. All others are excluded. Therefore the whole argument of equality falls somewhat short of the mark.

Furthermore, when one compares the struggles for equality in past history with this one, there is a missing link of great significance. There was a time in the United States when people of colour, as they are now called, were struggling for equality. It was a worthy fight and, thankfully, they eventually won it. However the blacks in the United States never asked to be called white. They just wanted the same rights. Similarly in this country and in others, we have had to struggle for women's rights. Thankfully, there have been some large gains made in this.

I think in Canada now there are many fewer areas in which women are discriminated against and yet never have I heard women saying that they want equal rights with men and therefore they want to be called men. They do not. They just want equal rights.

In this struggle for so-called equality for same sex couples, why do they want to use the same word as describes heterosexual marriage and has for millennia? Why not just go for the equality, which I and my party support, and let us not play the semantics game of changing the dictionary and using words that mean other things?

[Age of Consent, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak today, but listening to the debate has triggered a response in my heart that says I should be getting up to say a few things.

I am very concerned about what is happening in our country with respect to our young people. As members know, I worked for many years as an instructor at the college level. I have had many involvements with young people and children over the years in my capacity as a volunteer as well as a professional. It is absolutely necessary for us to give careful consideration to what we do in this Parliament because it affects the well-being of our children and families in the future.

I want to commend my colleague for putting forward the motion. It addresses an issue which the Liberal government is continually ignoring. It keeps whitewashing the solutions, saying that it will solve the problems. It keeps skirting the issue, not getting down to it.

The motion my colleague has put forward addresses the issue of adults having sexual activity with children, with young people. The Liberals are missing the point on this. They keep coming up with these specious arguments, such as it is going to make it criminal if a 14 year old kisses a 15 year old. This is not about that. This is about adults abusing and attacking our young people, our children. It simply and plainly should not happen.

However, as we all know, some people in our society, even in Canada, this wonderful country, are not unselfish and they do not look for the best good. They are in fact selfish. They look for ways in which they can gain sexual pleasure from whomever. That is why we have these limp laws on things like prostitution. It is against the law to talk about it but it is not against the law to do it.

My goodness, why are we not going after the men who prey upon these women? Why are we not going after these adults who would sexually abuse our children and our young people? It is atrocious that in this wonderful country of ours, we offer so little protection for our young people and children.

I learned a principle many years ago. I knew about this even before I became a member of Parliament, and that is we cannot pass a law that will make people good. The purpose of the law is to restrain those who are not good, who are evil, The purpose of the law is to stop those people from exploiting our young people and children who do not have a built-in moral compass that prevents them from doing it.

I am appalled having listened to the speeches from the other side. They are speaking against the motion my colleague has put forward, which would strengthen the protection of our young people and children. It is particularly important because most of the young people who are exploited are young women.

The Liberals over there are always talking about women's rights and equality. They say they are all for it. However, in this case they are totally ignoring young women who are, for the most part, the victims of this exploitation. They are just children at that stage. They need the protection of the law. They need to have some restraint on those people who would use and abuse these beautiful young girls. What a shame we are permitting this to happen in our country.

Every once in a while we get accused on this side of being angry. I was thinking about that the other day. It was in the media again that we Conservatives were always angry. I contend just the opposite. I believe in happiness, joy and fulfilment, but I believe in it for others as well. Therefore, when I express what could be construed as anger, it is a justifiable righteous anger against that which is inherently wrong. I will not apologize for that.

We need to have people who stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. I will be one of those people. I have tried to be that in my years as a member of Parliament and certainly in all my years before that as a father, a grandfather, an instructor and as a leader of young people in different organizations.

I contend that we need to support the member's motion to send a message that is unequivocal to some 40-year-old who would exploit one of our young people for his own sexual pleasure. I cannot wrap my head around that. Where have we gone in our society?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am speaking extemporaneously. I do not have a prepared speech because I did not get my staff to do a lot of research. However, I remember a few years ago when an adult from the United States came up to either New Brunswick or Nova Scotia and lured a girl he had met on the Internet. He got her to a motel and had sex with her. Because she was 14, the 40-year-old walked away scot-free. He was able to persuade her that she wanted to do it. That is why she went to the motel with him.

A 40-year-old enticed a 14-year-old and he walked free in Canada. If that same man would have done what he did in his own home state, he would have been in jail. We should not have let him out of the country until he had served about 50 years for that atrocious deed.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Liberals are wimps. It is time we stand up and protect our young people and our children.

I urge the members opposite not to just read the speeches that are brought to them from the minister's department. The minister has shown over and over again that he has absolutely no understanding of the real world. The departmental officials who are writing these speeches ought to hang their heads in shame as well, as much as the members who are willing to stand up and read them without thought and without any personal convictions on the matter.

I have much more to say but my time is up. I urge members to support the motion. It is worthy. It is in the right direction. It may not be perfect, but if we were to wait for something to be perfect, we would never support a Liberal bill.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot resist. I know that all hon. members have seen those ads on television from the Brick, “Don't pay until 2007”. Well, that is exactly what is in this bill. Members should read it. The bill says that nothing will be paid until there is a declared surplus in 2006 at the end of the fiscal year. There will be no money there. I do not know why members cannot understand that. The bill is quite explicit.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about using tactics to stop the work of Parliament. He talked about using procedural steps that would prevent Parliament from doing its work.

I would like to remind him and all other members present that the Liberals day after day in the latter part of May came in with motions to concur in committee reports, debating them endlessly to avoid carrying on with the business of Parliament. For him to somehow imply that others are doing that is really quite inaccurate. It was they who wasted so much time earlier this year that we are now in this position.

Furthermore, I resent him implying that by I, my colleagues, others in opposition and members on the government side taking the time to debate motions is a waste of time. After all, what is this place supposed to be. It is Parliament. If I am not mistaken I believe the French word “parler” means to speak. I think the word “parliament” comes from the same root word. This is the speaking place.

I sometimes tell my grandchildren that I work in the word factory. We are using words here hopefully to put ideas back and forth. In our debates we should hopefully be able to adjust and amend our rules, laws and motions so they are best for the country. I firmly and strongly contend that the agenda the government is now proposing, to extend the time of sitting, reduces the time when we should be keeping the commitments we have made to our constituents and others around of the country. Instead, the government has said that we need to be here to debate Bill C-48 and Bill C-38.

As our daily prayers state, our work here in Parliament is to pass good laws and make wise decisions. In this instance, being able to stop that or at least slow it down is beneficial for Canadian voters, our taxpayers and our citizens. We will make better laws if we can engage in a debate. This motion needs to be stopped.

[Extended Sitting Period, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the House leader. He indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of great national interest and great urgency.

The fact of the matter is that Bill C-48 and the provisions thereof contain, to my knowledge, nothing that will be done within the next year. All of these expenditures are subject to there being a surplus of at least $2 billion at the end of the fiscal year 2006. The urgency of this is just simply not there.

How can the House leader claim this urgency when clearly we will have more than enough time in the continuation of Parliament in the fall to debate this, to vote on it and hopefully to hear from more Canadians who are very interested in ensuring that the economy of the country stays strong and that the democratic process in this country is preserved, namely that budget speeches are not changed on the fly after they are made, destroying a long time tradition in the House?

With respect to Bill C-38, I venture again to say that this is an abuse of democracy and is one in which we ought not to be engaging. We have had literally thousands and I would suggest probably even close to a million names on petitions on this particular issue.

For the government to use an extension of a session to go in violation of what the clear majority of Canadians want in this matter and an issue which, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, can be solved without changing the definition of marriage, all of this can be done in a timely and normal fashion when we return in the fall session.

Calling this an emergency to extend the session is just so specious it is almost unbelievable. I would like the House leader to try to justify his move on this particular issue.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what I was leading up to is that we have all of these water issues in this country now and they are very important. It involves the necessary supply of water in one case, and in some instances when it comes to flooding, a rather distinct oversupply.

I would like to ask the hon. member to give us a very quick and brief summary of this diversion and what it means in terms of water supply and water management to the province.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, pardon the pun but we are being inundated with water problems in Canada these days. There is flooding in Alberta and now of course this issue that affects--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member has really blown her cover. Talking about the environment, Kyoto deals with carbon dioxide and water vapour. As a result of the hon. member's speech, we got more of both in this place than we had before.

The member talked about double digit interest rates. I remember doing some mathematical consulting for people who were facing foreclosure on their homes at that time and who thought they were getting a bad deal. This did occur, as I recall, near the early 1980s, before the Conservatives came to power. It was under a Liberal government that it happened.

I am thinking also of the debt that members opposite keep talking about. They keep blaming the Conservatives. We need to remember that if the Conservatives in 1984 would have had no debt from the Liberals, there would have been no debt in 1993, because in those nine intervening years, the Conservative government had a balanced budget on program spending. The amount that was added to the debt is simply the compound interest on the debt that the Conservatives inherited in 1984.

At this point, I ought to say that this is accurate. The member will get up and try to refute it by a whole bunch of more hot air and moisture, but the fact of the matter is that mathematically it is correct. I know it is, because I did that particular mathematical computation at the time of my election in 1993. The Conservative candidate said this and I was going to blow him out of the water, but being an honest guy and being a math type, I checked the math and sure enough, take the debt that the Liberals gave to the Conservatives in 1984, add the compound interest at the rate of the day and we end up with the debt that the Conservatives had at the time. We could perhaps hold them responsible for not correcting the Liberal errors faster, but that is about as far as we can go.

Furthermore, in the intervening years, the years that the Liberals like to brag about, addressing the issue of the deficit and all that, they did it by taking $30 billion out of the employees' pension fund and by robbing and raping the EI fund. That is how they did it.

Furthermore, we add things like the GST, which most Canadians do not like, but the Liberals have been raking it off. The Liberals ran in 1993 on the promise to kill it. Meanwhile they have been using it. They have been overtaxing on EI by huge amounts, $45 billion. If we would have had a responsible government over there, the debt would have come way down instead of just the little bit that they have moved it. I call it just plain spin doctoring on their part. They are really not up to it in terms of financial responsibility.

I will concede that they are Liberals and they could have spent more than they did, so I suppose we need to give them just a little gentle congratulations for following our advice and responding when we pushed for balanced budgets and stopped the borrowing.

I remember we had a plan in 1993 which was the zero in three. The Liberals said they could not do it, that they had all this deficit, so they cut all these programs. We simply accurately read the economic statements. On economic forecasting the Liberals are total wipe outs. If I were their instructor, they would all get zero in that course.

As a matter of fact, we read it accurately. We said it could be done. The fact that they did it proves that it was doable. Meanwhile, they smeared us. I could go on and on, but I know I am on questions and comments and I have to give the hon. member an opportunity to respond, which I really do not want to do. I do not want to hear what she will say because it will be unbelievable.