Ken Epp

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I heard most of the member's speech. Unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere for a short time. He has a number of very good ideas. Would he be willing to comment further on the whole idea of equality for natives?

There is a balance to be reached here. They are claiming, probably rightfully so, certain aboriginal rights. We ought to work together with them very strenuously to ensure land claims and things like that are settled in a timely manner and in a fair way.

However, in my view there is also a background of disadvantage to them because of the fact that they are held down by various aspects of the Indian Act and we ought to set them free. We ought to allow them to compete with other Canadians on an equal basis in business, in other areas and in professions.

When I was an instructor at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, from time to time I had students from some of the reserves in Alberta. I always felt that they should have had better access to education when they were younger. Some had a lot of catching up to do and I think that we bear a collective responsibility for that. Equality of opportunity is very important and I would like the member to further enlarge on that aspect.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the motion was seconded by the member for Portage--Lisgar. I would really be quite content to second it but I think that was what the member stated.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his thoughtful statements and also for filling in for his party's critic in this portfolio, who as we all know, is recuperating from a medical challenge. We certainly wish the member for Dauphin—Swan River well.

I have been interested in the native affairs portfolio for a number of years and the difficulties and the challenges which those individuals face. One of the areas I have identified in my talking with certain individuals is that they lack individual resources. In a way, it is comparable to the mayor of a town getting all the money that the individual citizens are entitled to and then doling it in the way that he feels.

One of the problems that we have heard listening to grassroots natives who live on reserves is that they do not get their money directly. They get it via the management, the band council and the chief on the reserve. It seems to me that it would be much better if the individuals were to have access to the money to which they are entitled directly rather than indirectly.

Could the member comment on that aspect of the situation?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the things the member is saying are not true, they malign other members of Parliament. That is against the rules of Parliament and I would ask the Chair to caution the member.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I was not originally intending to speak on the bill but my interest was piqued by the speeches. I guess I could add, as a parenthetical phrase, that I would encourage members of Parliament occasionally to come to this place and listen to and engage in these debates. That is after all what the purpose of this place should be. Perhaps by the mental stimulation that these debates could provide, if there were a lot of members here, we might come up with some new rules, regulations and laws that could better our society.

In listening to the speeches on the bill, I am particularly impressed with the idea that we must address and focus on the issues of youth justice. Statistics tell us that the number of crimes committed by youth is certainly disproportionate to their numbers in the population. We would then justifiably ask why is that so.

The House has heard my line many times before and that is I believe very strongly that it is the role of families, of homes, of churches, of schools, of everyone to instil in young people and children as they are growing up a built in compass of morality that informs their actions. People of all ages do what they believe is correct and generally will not do what they believe is incorrect or what is wrong. Somehow we have a situation where young people nowadays increasingly are doing things that by all standards are wrong, yet there seems to be no way of getting through to them.

I guess in a way this is a common sense approach. Let us do more with young people when they are young and in their formative years to instil in them a built in sense of morality.

I had a discussion with a person not very long ago on the issue of capital punishment. I said that personally it made no difference to me if we had capital punishment for murder because I was not going to murder anybody anyway. It does not matter what the penalty is. It is not the penalty that tells me that I am will not take someone's life. It is a deeply held belief and a deeply held value of human life that prevents me from taking human life. Consequently I do not need the law in that area to restrain me.

Perhaps I need the law in the area of other things, perhaps traffic actions for example, although even there I made a commitment many years ago as a young person to go through life without ever getting a speeding ticket. I am over 60, I will not say how much over, but that is only my age where I am over 60. I have been able to restrain the speed of the vehicles I have driven. To this stage in my life, I have not yet had a speeding ticket, a stop sign violation, a red light violation or any other moving traffic violation simply because I decided to obey the rules. It was built into me.

I do not say that as a matter of pride. I say that as a way of encouraging people that when they decide what they will do, it is in fact doable. All actions begin in the mind. Whether it is a criminal act, a good act, an act of charity or whatever it is, I do not believe that any actions are taken by an individual without first having been practised in the mind.

When I think of young people who engage in various illegal acts, all the way from vandalism of bus shelters to other things, somehow they first get it into their minds. I will not go on a digression now of everything that the television has taught us. I will try to avoid that, but I will say just in passing that there is little doubt in my mind that the increasing and incessant images of violence and lack of respect for each other that we see from Hollywood productions have had a profound influence on the way we treat and respect each other or disrespect each other.

My hon. colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands has brought forward a private member's bill. Of course I never speak on private members' bills without stating my jealousy of the fact that he was chosen and could bring his bill here. I have been a member now for over nine years and have never once won that lottery. Mathematically I am being discriminated against. I just want to put that on the record again. I greatly favour a system where no one would get second chances until everyone had firsts. Just like at the dinner table when we were youngsters at camp, no one got second helpings until everyone had firsts. I would like to see a method for private members' business where all the members are randomly put onto a list and do not come back until we have worked our way all the way to the bottom of the list. That is how it should be. We have an old, archaic system here.

Having gotten that off my chest, I urge all members who hear about this on the news, because this will be a clip on the news tonight, to promote the changes we are seeking for private members' business.

In this bill there is an increased emphasis on parental responsibility. I believe this is a very good principle. We have had some new youngsters born into our extended family recently. When youngsters are born, they are totally 100% dependent. Those little guys cannot even make decisions on when they eat or when they do the other things they do. All these decisions are either reflex decisions or they are made for them. A little two week old does not decide what to wear in the morning. All these decisions are made for them. However by the time that young person grown to be somewhere between age 12 to 20, all the decisions that affect their lives are made by them. I would hope it would not be at 12.

I remember having some really good discussions with my kids as they were growing up. I drummed into their little brains that as soon as they demonstrated that they could make wise decisions, I would allow them to make those decisions. They had to demonstrate it first though, and it varied. Our children were not all the same. That is not unusual at all.

One of my boys was very responsible at a young age. I actually suggested to him, when he was about 16 or so, that he should get some of his friends together, use the car, go out to the mountains for a weekend and have a little holiday. He was so proud that his dad trusted him. I said to him, “Son, I am doing this because you have earned that trust”.

One of the critical aspects of having responsible young people is to have responsible parents and to build a mutual respect between the two of them. One of the reasons I could do that was not only because my son respected me, but also because I respected him.

I will not talk about my other son, who pushed the envelope a little more, but we had those same kinds of discussions. Numerous times I made the decision for him because he was making the wrong one. He said, “Dad, I am old enough. I can decide this for myself”. I said, “Yes, but you are not deciding right. When you decide right then you can decide for yourself”. He then said that he did not have freedom of choice. I told him that he did. He had the choice to choose correctly and when he did, I would set him free. It took a little longer for him, but he turned out just fine. I cannot believe it but just a couple of weeks ago my youngest son turned 30. Can anyone believe it? He is such a fine, young man and we are very proud of him.

Here we have an issue where parents are asked to take responsibility for their children and I concur wholeheartedly. As in many other areas, if they do not do that of their own accord, then we have to have the hammer of the law which encourages them to do so. The implications that the member has put into this bill, that parents would be held responsible to help enforce the conditions of the release of young people, is totally reasonable. I would urge all members to concur that this bill should be votable and we should all vote in favour of it.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the whole issue of human life, in fact of any life, is intriguing. When I was at university I carried on after high school with the study of biology. I took first year biology in university even though I was a math physics major. I always was intrigued with the idea that chemicals and minerals can come together and somehow by a divine infusion can spring into life, growth and existence.

When we think of human life there is an additional dimension to that life because of our ability to think, to feel, to anticipate and to have a whole range of emotions, to love, hate and everything in between. We have genuine affection for our children and for our parents.

Several weeks ago we had the occasion of realizing that the essence of life was more than just the molecules that form the body when we stood beside the casket of my father who passed away before Christmas. We were suddenly confronted with the reality that what was Dad's body was now no longer Dad because life had now escaped from it.

We are dealing here with a very important and, I would venture to add, sacred subject when we deal with issues of human life.

Over the last number of years, perhaps the last five decades, there have been tremendous changes in how we view human life. As a matter of fact, when I was at university I remember a young man who, unfortunately, as a medical student performed the procedure called abortion. He actually lost his ability to ever get his medical licence because he did that. That was well within my lifetime. I was in my late teens when that happened. My goodness, I cannot believe it but it was about 45 years ago. That is incredible.

At that time the Criminal Code stated very clearly that to end the life of what we now call dispassionately a fetus was a Criminal Code conviction and, if I remember correctly, it would land the practitioner in jail for a minimum of 13 years. It was a very serious thing.

As I said, in the last five decades we have undergone a massive shift in our thinking about human life. It is now almost, to some, a commodity. In this case we are dealing with the issue of improving the probability of parenthood for those who want to be parents but who cannot have children.

I often think too that if our country were a person we could properly designate it as a schizophrenic person, because I find such huge inconsistencies in the way we deal with issues of life.

I took note of the fact, being in the hospital, where on one side there is a neonatal unit in which extraordinary procedures are taken to protect and preserve the life of a newborn who perhaps was born prematurely or with some other life-threatening situation, and the nurses, the doctors and the technology were all geared toward preserving that life. In the bill and with these amendments we are talking about the technologies that are used to create that life in the first place if the normal process does not work for a couple.

However, right across the hall from that same neonatal unit is another unit where we euphemistically speak of terminating the life. We say terminating the pregnancy but it is really terminating the life. To me that is a schizophrenic reaction. On one hand we say that we will do everything possible to preserve a life and then, on the other hand, we have no compunction whatsoever of taking that same human life. That inconsistency is a huge one. I really do not know how people who work in this area can reconcile those two competing points of view.

There is another very important issue that we must address when we deal with this technology, as it is called. Mention has been made of the donors. I venture to guess that a person who has come to be simply by the technological bringing together of certain components by two donors must long for that sense of parentage. We all need to know where we come from.

There is a huge issue involved when we use technology to create human beings by bringing together anonymous donors. That question must be answered in a way that does not produce future conflict. If the legislation provides that the donors, so to speak, I call them the mom and the dad, are to be kept anonymous, then how will that individual so created ever find out their roots?

I believe adults have the right to know the source of their parentage. We must make sure that the donors who are participating in the project now recognize that 18 years down the road, say, they would be required to become known. I believe there is a very strong possibility of that. I think that withholding that information from the person who is born of these technological processes is harmful. We need to give some very careful thought to that.

Another issue that is of great importance is to control the parentage. It used to be that this was done automatically. We are not permitted by law and by convention to marry our brothers, sisters or close relatives. That was a wise decision in terms of a biological approach because of the genetics involved. If we have anonymous donors, then hopefully the young people who are falling in love and seeking to marry would know whether or not they share a genetic parentage. This is something that has to be determined.

How are we going to do that? Will we require all young people, 18 years from now, before they proceed to marriage and have children of their own, to go to an anonymous government registry? We hope it is more efficient than the gun registry. Will they be required to go to a registry to find out their actual genetic parentage and whether or not they will be permitted to marry? That is an important question and one which must be answered when we deal with these issues.

What I have done in the little time that I have had here is raise some questions. I have not offered any answers but I think these are questions that demand an answer. We must be very careful, in proceeding along this line, to know exactly what we are doing so as to preserve the genetic strength of the next generation, otherwise we run risks which are almost beyond comprehension.

[Liberal Government, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how fitting that this sitting of Parliament should end on Friday the 13th. With the boondoggles and fiascos of this morally bankrupt government, the whole fall session has been bad luck for Canadians.

We have had endless sandbox squabbling between the Prime Minister and the ex-finance minister. Another minister has been forced to resign over patronage in his province. We have seen a Prime Minister beleaguered with patronage and sleaze turn his sights on backbench and opposition MPs. We have seen a Prime Minister threaten the members of his caucus as they wrested away a small part of his control over committees.

The Liberals take pleasure in putting innocent farmers into jail but they will not stop pedophiles and child pornographers. They throw away $1 billion on a gun registry that does not work.

Bad luck this whole session. It is time for Canadians to send these “fiberals” packing.

[Canada Pension Plan, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with this Canada pension plan. I was a young man just starting my career in 1966 when the Canada pension plan was brought in. I remember at that time that some advice had been given by different people to the government bureaucrats, and some from the government bureaucrats, saying that it must be set up to be financially sound and stable. There were questions even then regarding whether the Liberal government of the day should be getting into this thing at all because before that there was no Canada pension plan.

The Canada pension plan is not a wonderful scheme for people who do not happen to work during their lifetime. For example, people like my own wife, who, because of our choice to have a full time mom in the home, has never been the recipient of a weekly or a monthly salary. She has not been able to contribute to the Canada pension plan and gets no pension. It is only for those who presumably already have the means whereby they can put away some extra money to supplement the income they would get from the old age pension. This was not well done because it was badly set up.

I remember an actuary from the government suggesting that the rates of contribution were not high enough to make it sustainable. He was summarily fired, not unlike the actuary a year or two ago who suggested that changes should be made and who disagreed with the former minister of finance. He too was fired because of that advice.

We need to take sound financial advice from actuaries and others so that the Canada pension plan is sustainable and is financially sound because Canadians are expecting it.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member really believes that Kyoto will result in a net increase in jobs in Canada.

The statement the Liberals keep making is that it will create jobs. I do not think one could argue with that. However, the number of jobs lost will be much greater than the few jobs created. There will be a net loss of jobs which I think will be rather substantial. This is based on not a very controversial premise at all, which is that businesses will go where they can make a reasonable profit and not experience a loss.

With the recommendations that we see as to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, it appears to me that many businesses, manufacturers, chemical plants, and the petroleum industry will move south of the border where they would not face the same onerous regulations and higher costs. With that the jobs will flee. That is inevitable.

The member may want to rethink and restate his position on that.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I find this quite incredible. Whenever I think of spending money, even out of my office budget, I always think, “What about those people in my riding who work as hard as they do, then have taxes on top of all of their other bills and are having trouble making ends meet? Should I really be spending their money this way?” Yet here we have the parliamentary secretary who just flippantly says, “Yes, we spent $1.2 million on the CFL”.

The fact of the matter is that no one looked at an ad in the CFL in order to find out where to go to collect unemployment insurance benefits, or employment insurance benefits, as they are now inappropriately called. Nobody got information directly on instructions to do this or that because of the government making an announcement. It is in every instance just a case of feel good, it really is.

The parliamentary secretary should take back the message to the minister that he ought to fix that part of it and stop wasting millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.