Ken Epp

[The Senate, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister, western alienation is just a vague concept, but to westerners, it is a cold, brutal reality. We love this country and we are proud to be part of it, but we just do not seem to count when we run into a crunch.

We have hundreds of ranchers and farmers who are in dire straits. Unfortunately, all we can get out of this Liberal government is announcement after announcement. We just never seem to get the cash that is being announced.

The Prime Minister claims that he cannot appoint Alberta senators because it is piecemeal. No, Mr. Speaker, he will still be appointing senators, just like always. We are simply asking that he choose the first choices of Albertans instead of his own Liberal bagmen. What would be wrong with that? Why does “Mr. Democratic Deficit” not understand that?

I challenge the Prime Minister to stop being so chicken. Let him step out on a limb and do what is right for the west for a change.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech and I would like to commend the member.

I note that on cigarettes it is now required that a warning label be attached to it. There are all sorts of different things. Some of them include pictures and some of them are pretty graphic. Basically it says that we can buy this product but if we actually use it for the purpose for which it is intended, it will probably kill us. They are required to put that label on the product.

I wonder whether the member would favour doing that with products that contain trans fats. Maybe we should just put the label on it stating that it contains trans fats and that if used over a long period of time it will greatly increase the probability of having heart problems, clogged arteries and things like that. Maybe that would be a solution.

My second question to the member is a little tongue-in-cheek. In as much as she did quite a bit of advertising for Voortman's, and in our new environment here of ethical cleansing that we are undergoing within this Parliament, I wonder whether she would like to declare whether she actually owns shares in Voortman's.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I used this example earlier today, but I see there are different players on the stage now, so I would like to use the same example again.

The member has reiterated the stand of his party in putting this motion today that we ought to legislate against those things which are harmful to our citizens. That is the basic premise.

I would like to point out to him and to others present that it just so happens that we lose between 35,000 and 40,000 people every year due to illnesses and lung diseases that come from cigarette smoking. That is about 100 people a day. If there was a certain model of airplane that went down and killed 100 people and if that happened three days in a row, we would shut that thing down. Yet we are totally ignoring cigarettes. They are still legal and the government still taxes them and collects the revenue and there is no outrage about that at all.

Meanwhile we are going after this one. I think it is very inconsistent. Perhaps what the government is doing is starting at one of the lower items of danger to us. If we are to get into this whole thing of legislating against all of these things which are dangerous, where will it ever end? I am really concerned about that. I would like the hon. member's comments in response to that.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Churchill for a very good speech, but I too am thinking that there is a dilemma we face here, that is, if we are going to go down the road of banning substances that are harmful, the list is huge. There are many things on the list that I think are considerably more dangerous than the trans fats, although I am not arguing about that. I think there is some science to back this up. I would like to see more studies. I also think, however, that if we were to ban some things we may be introducing some other elements in terms of preserving food, et cetera, that might be even worse. There needs to be a good timeline granted for these studies to make sure that we do this thing right and do not have too many unintended consequences.

I am very concerned about this and also about the fact that there are many substances like this that we hear about from time to time. I will not bother mentioning them, because we all know what they are. It would be unfair for me to once again talk about the cola drinks to which I was addicted for many years. They are very, very bad, and young people suck in the advertising for these things.

How do we ever bring this to an end in terms of banning things that people are going to eat or drink and are harmful to themselves?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the mover of the motion, this is very good initiative in terms of getting it forward, increasing education and information and other things like that. However, I would like to point out to the member that one of the most hazardous intakes into human bodies is that of cigarettes. For example, we know that approximately 100 people every day die from heart and lung associated diseases that come from smoking. To me that is a much greater issue than this one. Perhaps the member's party will then soon put forward a motion to ban the smoking of cigarettes.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member from Winnipeg for bringing forward this motion. The motion is worthwhile and plays an important part in increasing the information and education of Canadians about this issue.

There are many hazards. For example, some members may have noticed that I have lost quite a bit of weight. One reason I did is, as of last March, I smartened up and stopped drinking one to two litres a day of my favourite cola drink and I have lost over 60 pounds.

Maybe we should ban all these soft drinks. There is a lot of evidence that they are really very dangerous and not good for people. Maybe we should kill all the junk foods that people are prone to eat. Maybe we should ban vans that people rent to help our kids move, so that they do not fall off the back of them and shatter their wrists. There are so many of these hazards.

What about motorcycles? It is very dangerous to travel on a motorcycle. I am one who happens to enjoy motorcycling. Perhaps we should ban them because they are much more dangerous than travelling by other vehicles.

Could the member tell me where he thinks we should draw the line about all of the things that should be disallowed in our society so people can be protected from all these dangers?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Cathy Maurice and Margaret Galloway in my riding and Lesley Massey in Calgary are the widows of Alberta RCMP officers who gave their lives on the job. Their husbands were given full regimental funerals and rightfully so. Commissioner Zaccardelli was there and rightfully so. Hundreds of fellow officers were there and rightfully so. These widows were billed for a large part of the funeral costs. That was wrong.

Will the government immediately correct this shameful injustice and pay for these funeral costs?

[Foreign Affairs, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Mennonites have an honoured reputation for providing relief and working for peace around the world. There have been recent reports of the arrest and conviction of seven Mennonite workers in Vietnam and reports that Canadian officials are watching the case closely.

I think Canada should do more than just watch. Is the government pursuing any formal, direct diplomatic initiatives to try to save these individuals from imprisonment and torture? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you recognized that my riding is no longer Elk Island but now Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

I would like to congratulate the member for having been elected although I will admit that secretly I was cheering for our guy. However, he arrived here and he is clearly articulate. It was wonderful to hear his speech.

I would like to challenge the member in the area of low balling the budget on estimated revenue. It is as if I were to enter a high jump contest and bragged that I would jump six inches and then exceeded that by jumping eight. That is wonderful. How much money could we have applied to debt reduction had we not had continual waste in things such as ad scam, the billion dollar gun registry, and the boondoggle? The gun registry was terribly mismanaged and more money could have been put down on the debt.

I hope the member helps the government straighten out some of those problems.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the House and the member opposite that he said discussions had taken place, but we are unaware of those discussions, unfortunately. That may be an internal party thing, but we are not aware of it. That is why we at this time decline unanimous consent. We will certainly reconsider if this has been done.