Ken Epp

[Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill just introduced may possibly be out of order because it could be in violation of the Parliament of Canada Act.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Precisely, Madam Speaker. I was talking about the general tendency of the government to control anything it wants to by making it into a criminal offence. Because the federal government by law has jurisdiction over federal criminal law it can make it into a criminal offence. That is precisely what I was driving at and I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for drawing the attention of all the people listening to that important fact. Our amendments in this group address that issue. We are saying this is not a criminal offence.

I will give a specific example. I have related this in the House before, but it was a long time ago. It bears repeating because it is a good example. I was driving along in my old Chevy Suburban on my way to a meeting somewhere in my riding and a mother duck came out from the side with five or six little ducklings waddling along behind her. I can relate to that family. I immediately checked my rear view mirror. I computed that the truck behind me would have time to stop. If I did not stop for these ducks, the truck behind me would undoubtedly have wiped out the family. I said to myself, I think he can stop because he was far enough back, so I threw on my four way flashers and put on my brakes. I stopped and observed mother duck taking all her little ducklings across the road. This is not an endangered species, however it demonstrates that I for one am not ready to run over a family of ducks and little ducklings because they are to be protected. They are also a form of life.

What happens though if I am driving along, and let us take that same scenario, and the truck behind me could not possibly stop? Would I stop? No. I would say that my life and the life of the truck driver, who may be forced to take the ditch, are more important than this poor little duck family. I would have to make that instant but difficult decision and I would make the right one.

The same thing is true for endangered species. I grew up on a farm and I related this also the other day when I spoke on Group No. 1. Sometimes, much to our regret, we would not notice a nest of birds with eggs until it was too late and totally accidental. What does the Liberal government do? The government says to farmers who fail to protect an endangered species that if they run over and kill an endangered species family they would go to jail. There would be a fine of $50,000. That is not fair because the principle of law is that criminal offences only apply when criminal intent is intended.

It is a criminal offence to use guns in producing a crime. It is not a criminal offence to fail to fill in paperwork. It is a criminal offence to wilfully and purposefully destroy the life of an endangered species. It is not a criminal offence to do so accidentally. Does the bill give any peace of mind to farmers and other people, hunters who happen to be out driving somewhere in the woods? It gives no peace of mind to them. It makes them into criminals even though there is no criminal intent. The principle of the bill is wrong. Our amendments in this group try to address that.

It would be great if we could go through those amendments one by one in detail. If all the Liberal members would pay close attention and think about the principles they may say that they had better amend the bill and make sure it is corrected. Maybe the Alliance amendments would do that and the Liberals would support them. That would be the correct way of responding to this offensive legislation, or at least the parts of the legislation which are so offensive because the intent of it is fine.

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member who spoke previously was very glowing in his support of the bill. I wished he had used some of his time to tell us why he will vote against the very good amendments we put forward. After all, at report stage that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the amendments that have been put forward.

I should not prejudge the matter, but I would predict, and if I were a betting man I would bet up to a nickel on it, that he will vote against all the amendments from Canadian Alliance because they have the wrong label. If the amendments were Liberal, he would vote for them. That is just a strange and curious coincidence, I am sure.

I want to talk a little bit about the amendments in Group No. 2. This is a very important bill. I want to make sure, by reiterating in broad principle, that I, and I am sure all of my colleagues and probably all the members in the House, want to see proper legislation that will promote the preservation of endangered species.

I have the great privilege of living on a country acreage in Alberta. It is a place where we have been for a number of years. We bought it at a good price at a time when we could afford it. Subsequent to that the price has gone up, the taxes have gone up and sometimes I wonder whether we should stay there.

One of the features of our place is that we have a little lake nearby. On that lake is an unusual species of duck. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name for that species of duck but it is a very interesting duck. People from all over Canada and the United States go there, put up blinds to observe the ducks and shoot them with their cameras, not with guns. I do not know if the ducks are an endangered species but they are a unique species which attracts quite a bit of attention.

I do not see any reason in the world why, if we have a species which is endangered, we should not take adequate and appropriate measures to prevent that species from becoming extinct. How do we do that? Strictly speaking, except for lands which are specifically under federal jurisdiction, this is not within the realm of the federal government unless it can say that it is a criminal offence.

I take great offence at the ease with which the Liberals are creating criminal offences just so they can usurp the power of the provinces. They are quite ready to make a criminal of a person who fails to comply with some administrative procedure. The best example in our area is that of the gun law. The reason I am mentioning it here is because the Liberals are applying the same principle in this legislation, which is that in recognizing that the enforcement of the registration of guns is a provincial jurisdiction, they have brought it into federal jurisdiction by saying it is a criminal act to fail to register. That is absurd.

If a person walks into a bank or a store with a gun, or a knife for that matter, and attacks the owner of the store, steals the money, injures the person or even kills him, that is a criminal offence because a crime is intended. However, that person may simply have failed to fill in an administrative form that says he or she has a device, be it a knife, a sledgehammer, a baseball bat or a gun.The Liberals have chosen the gun, which is one of the tools used to perform criminal acts. However, they have not said that using the weapon in an offence is a criminal act. They have said that failing to fill in a piece of paper and registering it with the government is a criminal act.

Quite clearly this is in violation of a very important--

[Infrastructure, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is a case of the Minister of Transport writing a cheque that the Minister of Finance minister will not cash. Canadians are taxed to death and they expect the three levels of government to work together so that services are provided efficiently.

Does the finance minister or anyone in this government have any vision or any plan for addressing this issue?

[Infrastructure, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's big city mayors came to Ottawa to discuss their financial plight. The Minister of Transport acknowledged the crisis and admitted that the infrastructure funds of the last number of years were not the answer to long term, stable funding for the cities. The Minister of Finance on the other hand rebuked the Minister of Transport and offered no new solutions.

Why is the finance minister pitting the cities of Canada against the provinces of Canada?

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the fact that no member from another party stood up is not an indication that they are disinterested in this topic or that they do not fully understand the ramifications of the amendments before us right now.

The question we are debating right now is primarily that of compensation for landowners and perhaps others who suffer financial loss because of the legislation's enforcement.

I am privileged to have grown up on a farm, and I am old enough to also remember how things were in the good old days. The House may find this extremely surprising I am sure, but when I was just a youngster in my area I remember some of the farmers actually pulled their implements with horses. We did not. By the time I was old enough to see what was going on around me in my life, my Dad already had purchased a small tractor. However implements in those days were very small. I remember implements with as little as six feet. It would take all week to work a field, which by the time I was a teenager we could work in a day. Now my brother, with the large equipment he has, does that same area in an hour or two.

The reason I mention this is because there is a much greater loss to taking a piece of land out of production than just the prorated area of the land itself. When I was a youngster we had little equipment. If there was a slough in the field and ducks, which had a nearby nest, were on the water, we just farmed around it. It was no big deal. We had a little implement so we just circled around it.

There were actually smart ducks and stupid ducks. The smart ducks would take their family rearing responsibilities to the larger ponds and the dugouts that would retain the water until the youngsters were grown up and could move around. The stupid ducks used to set up their families on a slough. They would swim around on the water and had their nests near the little slough. By the time the ducklings hatched the slough was dried up so there was no water for them. Then they had to take a long overland trek to find someplace where there was water for them.

In all instances, when we found a duck's nest we would farm around it if we saw it in time. Regrettably, there were some occasions when we saw it after it was too late. I remember always feeling very badly about that, but after one has gone over a nest with an implement it is too late to undo it. One cannot unscramble eggs. I think, at least in the area we lived, it is built into the farmer's mentality to preserve life because that after all is what farming is all about; it is providing food and livelihood for sustaining life.

With the small implements it was no problem, but nowadays farmers have implements that are from 40 to 60 feet wide. Some are even greater than that. One cannot make little detours for every little slough. As a result, many farmers have undertaken to level off their fields so that these sloughs are no longer there.

What happens when there is an area which can perhaps no longer be used for production? A great and considerable loss is involved. The farmer or the landowner who suffers that loss should not have to bear that loss himself. Again, we can think of different examples. I think of a large corporation that perhaps has an industrial plant.

If it has to put two or three acres of its land aside to preserve a habitat for some endangered species, it can probably afford it. Percentage wise it is a very small proportion of its total operation. This could even apply to someone operating a very large farm. If he or she loses four or five acres, it probably would not be a big deal.

However there are some people for whom it might represent 50% of their income. It might represent enough of their income to drive them from the position where they can survive and thrive on their property to one where they can no longer stay there. Now compensation becomes an issue of great importance because if they are not compensated for it, they lose their livelihood.

I think too of many people living out in the country in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for whom their land is their retirement fund. All their lives they have put all the money they have earned into the business. They do not have an accumulated bank account or huge RRSP funds or, heaven forbid, a government funded pension plan. They are looking to sell their property when they retire and thereby earn the income they need for their retirement. In the event that their land becomes unsaleable, due to it having been classified, their future disappears. It is unconscionable to even contemplate that there would not be adequate compensation guaranteed.

As the present bill is worded, the minister may provide for compensation. It is strictly at the whim of the minister who happens to be there at the time. That presents us with a huge problem simply because of the things we have observed from the government in the time that we have been here.

If a farmer in a Liberal held riding were to lose some property, it looks to me as though there would be a higher probability of getting compensation than if that property were in a Conservative or an NDP held riding. That would be really terrible. The highest probability would clearly be if the property were in the Prime Minister's riding. That is not the way to run a business.

We ought to have rules in place that apply equally across the board and across the country. We in our party believe very strongly in the equality of Canadians. It ought not matter what political stripe is represented in the particular area. It should be based on principles that are put solidly into the bill. What we propose with our amendments, which I strongly support, is that there be a formula which basically mandates the degree of compensation and the fact that compensation must be paid.

Another thing we have to look at is how the property is evaluated? I think of an acquaintance of mine who farms and whose farm location is such that in the foreseeable future, I would say some time in the next 50 years, his land will no longer be farmland and will become part of a city. That land is worth a great deal more than just the present value of it to the farm operation. Will those things be taken into account? I suspect strongly that there will be some gaps, disincentives and inequities and as a result, as my colleague from Yorkton just indicated, individuals will make decisions which take them out of the loop so they are not involved with this conflict.

I have much more to say, but I see my time is up.

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question is with respect to this private members' business. Are we now then to assume that you, Mr. Speaker, have accepted the amendment that was put by the member on the Liberal side to hijack this motion?

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to appeal to you in making your ruling on this motion. I think it is absolutely despicable that a member on the government side would seek to hijack a private member's bill irrespective of which side of the House it comes from. This is a private member's bill and I think it is absolutely unreal that he should even attempt that.

[Contraventions Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I half expected the Liberal member, who had quite a bit of time to finish her speech, to stand up first, but I guess Monday mornings come too early for those who support the use of marijuana. I should not say that.

I have mixed feelings rising to speak to this motion because I would prefer that young people and adults not become involved in drugs which are addictive and harmful. I would be much happier if these things were not available, if the use of drugs, especially when it comes to harder drugs, would be such a taboo that people would simply not use them. However I also recognize that this is quite unrealistic.

We have a couple of major blights in that regard and both are legal. I am talking about cigarettes and alcohol. I know there are many people who use these substances in moderation and do not seem to suffer any long term ill effects. Yet I am aware of several people, in fact one of my friends, who I think it would be fair to say, is not alive today directly as a result of alcohol destroying his body. Many, because they have been impaired, have been involved in motor vehicle and boating accidents and as a result has had a huge devastation in the lives of those families and individuals who have involved themselves with drugs.

We now have the question of marijuana and whether it should be legalized. I have said that I would prefer that we not make drugs available to our children. They should be given activities and other things that challenge them without having to get into these chemical diversions.

How does one balance this off? On one hand, we could say that if they are in possession of this stuff there will be fines or jail as the law now stands. On the other hand, we could say that they can do whatever they want.

I am torn between the two opinions on this issue. I do not believe that we should have so much government intervention and so many rules and laws that try to control the minutest details of our lives. I would like to have a great deal more freedom. There are some laws which of course are necessary. We have very proper traffic laws regarding driving on the right side of the road, obeying speed limits and stopping at stop signs and red lights. Those are fine laws that we as a society agree with because they are to our benefit.

The question is would legalizing marijuana be to our societal benefit or should we continue to have a rule against it and there should be a restrictive law? It is my understanding that my colleague's bill would decriminalize it to the extent that possession of marijuana would no longer entail a criminal offence with jail sentences and a criminal record, but that it would be reduced to a fine for possession.

I do not know how other members in the House feel about it, but people who make a profit at the expense of our children are among the most despicable of our citizens. I think of the gangs and the organized crime that make money from child prostitution and from distributing drugs to our young people. That is absolutely despicable. I would like to see them stopped. Our young people are so precious and vulnerable in those young teen years and earlier.

I would really like to see drug dealers who go to schoolyards to try to suck young people and children into the use of their drugs, because it is a source of money for them, in jail. We do not need that. They have a very negative effect on our society.

However on the other hand, if young people smoke a toke, as they say, does that mean that they should go to jail? I do not know. They are more a victim than a participant, yet I would like to see something very tangible that would discourage them from becoming involved in this.

There are other arguments about marijuana. Certainly some say that it is not as harmful or addictive as the use of ordinary cigarettes. Just because one is legal and the other is not does not necessarily mean that we should conclude that it is bad that marijuana is illegal. In fact one of the things I really wonder about is the ability of this government and other governments, but this one particularly, to refuse to allow businesses that sell ordinary cigarettes to advertise. They put all sorts of restrictions on them without having declared it an illegal or dangerous substance.

When young people say that they can smoke marijuana and that it will not do them as much harm as smoking a pack of cigarettes every 12 hours, is a specious argument. I wish we would not give our young people those arguments. I really wish we would have very strong families who would by example show that the use of these substances is unnecessary. Therefore young people would not use them by their own choice, rather than by coercion of the law.

There is an interesting little sidelight here. I remember that cigarettes and liquor were not permitted in my grandfather's home. It was partially a religious thing that they did not touch it. Somehow my parents inherited that idea and we never had any liquor or cigarettes in our home.

I have confessed in the House before that one time I did smoke a cigarette. It made me feel very uncomfortable and I decided that it was a stupid thing to do. Why would one pull into one's lungs something that would make him cough uncontrollably and that cost money on top of that? I made an intellectual decision very young. I was in high school at the time. I found a pack of cigarettes, took one out, smoked it on the sly and decided it was not for me. That was it. My grandfather's and father's example carried on to me. I also would like to believe that it has been effective in preventing my own kids from smoking anything, either cigarettes, or marijuana or other things.

I believe the strongest way of prevention is having strong families who teach by word and by example that these things really are unnecessary. If one has a complete and full life, one does not need to either bolster or subdue it by the use of chemicals.

However in this case I have not yet decided whether I will support my colleague's bill. On one hand, I like the idea of the courts utilizing their resources to fight the real criminals who traffic in these substances instead of going after kids who happen to have a small amount in their possession. On the other hand, I am so hesitant to send a signal to our young people that it is okay them to do it.

There are medical and longer term psychological ramifications from the use of it. I would be very delighted if this blight were to be removed from our society. Whether retaining and strengthening the criminal law prohibiting it is the way to go is not clear to me at this time. At this stage I am firmly undecided.

[Budget Implementation Act, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that you can correct my thinking, but it seems to me that since it is 1.30 p.m. we should be going on to private members' business. I do not know on what grounds you are conducting this vote.