Ken Epp

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that you recognized me because with the time allocation motion just passed, had you not I would have been precluded from speaking on this since I have committee duties immediately following question period today.

I would like to begin by saying that what we are observing in the House is absolutely and totally despicable. Time allocation is only necessary when the opposition so strenuously opposes a bill that it goes on and on.

What the government is failing to recognize is that there is a very solid reason why the opposition is against the bill and the amendment . If this place worked correctly with free votes, as it should, then the government members, the backbenchers, would recognize that the amendment is simply and totally a racist amendment, and therefore is totally and absolutely wrong.

In Canada we do not divide people based on their race or ethnic background. We believe in the equality of Canadians. Then the appointed Senate comes along and passes a motion to include a specifically racist determination for sentencing in the youth justice system. That is plainly and simply wrong.

How I wish this place would function properly so that instead of having the amendment and a government forcing the amendment through with whipped votes and entrenching into our law a law, which is very wrong, we could act as representatives of our people, evaluate such an amendment, decide that it should not be supported, vote against it and carry on.

It is shameful that every time we vote in this place, we are not voting on bills before us. Instead, we are voting on whether or not there should be an election. We are off the topic. When the Liberal members vote, they say they have to vote the way they are told because if the government loses the bill, it will be considered a vote of non-confidence and they will have to call an election. That is absurd. The ultimate of absurdity is to have the House of Commons run the country with rules that do not permit us to defeat or amend a bad bill or motion. That is really despicable.

I worked for some years on a school board. Sometimes when a motion was moved, the person moving it thought it was a good one and moved it in faith. However during our debate one member would say that we should think about it, then give us some suggestions and other members would pick up on it and a train of thought would develop. If we decided the motion should not pass because it would be detrimental to the well-being of our school, our students and our teachers, we would defeat it. We did not then say we had to see whether we could get re-elected. No, we had done our job. By defeating the motion, we did exactly what we were there for.

If the House of Commons would get it into its head that it has the ultimate power and if those members over there would start telling the Prime Minister and their whip to give them the option of using their own abilities and their own heads to analyze issues and come to their own conclusions, the result would be much better laws. If it was a good idea, they would support it. If it was a bad idea, they would seek to amend it or defeat it.

The amendment, which has come from the Senate, specifically says that judges must take into account the racial origin of the person being sentenced. I know this is probably well-intentioned. I think probably many members in the House, myself included, have knowledge of aboriginal people. We know some who have really been behind the eight ball a lot in their lives.

I taught a number of native students at the technical institute. I always felt they were somehow disadvantaged because of their previous education and it was difficult for them to catch up. I tried as much as I could to help them, in addition to the help I gave to my other students. That is the way to bring these people on board. To tell them that they are not equal or that we will not care if they commit a crime is wrong.

I need to clarify this. There is this impression that because there are so many aboriginals in our jails we need to have sentencing laws which try to counteract what is a bias in the courts.

My colleague from Surrey previously mentioned this in the debate and it needs to be underlined. I do not believe that there is a single aboriginal in a Canadian jail who was put there because he was aboriginal. I have more faith in our justice system than the government does. If that is the case, if the system is biased against them at the court level, then we should fix that at the court level to ensure that everybody is treated equally.

If the Senate would have come with an amendment stating that aboriginal people would be sentenced 50% more than other people, then all of us would have been up in arms. If someone would have said that aboriginals were to be sentenced more harshly than non-aboriginals, I believe every Liberal would have risen in objection to such an amendment. I believe every member on this side would have screamed in protest at such an absurd bill.

However, the corollary of the amendment that is before us is very simple. It says that sentencing of non-aboriginals will be more severe. How can we simply put a different group into that same sentence and not recognize that it is just as bad? If it is bad to say that aboriginals will get an extra sentence, then it is equally bad to say that non-aboriginals will get an additional sentence or one which is harsher.

If we stop to think about it, it is totally clear how wrong and absurd the amendment. What frustrates the dickens out of me, if I dare use that kind of non-parliamentary language, is that we probably all recognize that this is a wrongheaded notion which needs to be corrected. We should have the ability in the House of Commons to reject that amendment without having to call an election. My goodness, this is totally absurd.

I want to say something about the purpose of the law, specifically regarding young offenders.

I do not need a law to tell me that I shall not murder. I have that law written in my heart. It was taught to me in my youth. It has been reinforced through my whole life. If I lived in a country in which there was no law against murder, I still would not murder anyone. I do not need a law which tells me not to rape a woman. I will not do it in any case.

Then one could ask this. If we in Canada are such wonderful people that we would not do these things, why should we have the law? The law has one purpose only. It is to restrain those who do not have a built in law. That is the purpose of the law. People who would not do it anyway do not need the law. However, for those who would, the law becomes a restraining power. It ensures that those people who would offend the lives others, their personal safety or their property shall be restrained. That is the purpose.

To my knowledge this is an aspect of the amendment which has not been mentioned yet, and I listened quite carefully throughout the day when we started to debate the amendment from the Senate. The act of the law to restrain the lawbreaker should apply as much to the aboriginal as to others because we do not want them to break the law.

If we have a law that says that because there are so many others of a particular race in our jails, we will not punish that race as harshly, it reduces the restraint aspect for the aboriginals and consequently does them a huge disservice because it removes the disincentive for them to commit crimes which are against society.

I do not believe murder is right whether it is in Canada, the United States or any other country. Nor do I believe murder is right if it is done in an aboriginal home or a non-aboriginal home. The principle is the same. The restraint to people of committing these crimes must be the same. We cannot give the message to the aboriginals that they care less, therefore we will restrain them less when they have in their minds to do wrong. It really is a wrongheaded notion and one that needs to be corrected. It is a notion that we cannot let slip by.

In my debate here, part of my purpose is to ensure that we prevent this racist law from being passed. Mention has been made that it is in some other laws. It ought not to be there either. We cannot justify a wrong because it exists in another location. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

I am appealing to Liberal members. It is in their power to put a brake on this type of thing which we do not want in our country. On Monday there is a caucus meeting. If it were not for the time allocation and the pushed vote, maybe there would be time for them to discuss this in caucus. Maybe they could say that they do not want to be the party in Canada that goes down in history as having entrenched into laws policies, principles and sentencing laws that are based on race. Maybe they could say that they do not want to be called the Liberal racist party of Canada. That is something they should want to avoid.

Therefore this amendment needs to be defeated. I say to my Liberal colleagues to simply do what is right, to stand in their places when the vote is called, and say “Notwithstanding that this is what is being decided and notwithstanding that we have these whipped votes, I am going to do what is right this time”.

Those members would find that if enough of them did what was right, they would not be punished by their party. I do not believe the Prime Minister would kick 40 of them out. He would not push himself into a position of a minority government simply because a number of his members exercised their own brains and did what was right.

I appeal to them to stand for what is right, to stand up and vote against this amendment, to stand and go down in history as doing what is right for the country and assure equality of Canadians, not differences based on their race.

Your body language, Mr. Speaker, tells me I should interrupt myself.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directly related to the motion on closure.

The reason the government has brought in closure is that we on this side strenuously object to the bill and to the racist attitude expressed in the amendment from the Senate. We know it is wrong and a whole bunch of Liberals know it is wrong.

I would like to ask the minister and the Prime Minister a specific question. When it comes to voting on the bill and voting on the amendment from the Senate, will they at least allow free votes for members on that side who agree with this anti-racism that we support and who are against the racism that the Liberals are trying to promote? Will they give free votes so that members over there can express that displeasure?

[Privilege, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have clarification as to whether the minister of defence voted correctly on this since it is a conflict of interest involving him directly.

[Broadcasting Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, with the ring of the bill so to speak, we transition from Bill C-7 to Bill S-7. Since seven is one of my favourite numbers, I guess I am fortunate to be able to speak today.

The bill produces a bit of a conundrum to us as individuals. We are aware of the fact that private members' business is always subject to free votes so my job in the next few minutes will be to persuade the majority of the members of the House to consider carefully their reaction to the bill.

As I understand it, the purpose of the bill, as originated by the Senate, is simply to allow the CRTC to provide reimbursement of expenses for people who intervene in a hearing before the commission. It is an interesting and defendable bill in the sense that it would equalize what is already in place in some instances.

As most members know, and I imagine many of the public knows, the CRTC is charged in Canada with regulating and managing both broadcasting functions and telecommunication functions. These are two rather diverse functions and involve everything from radio and television broadcasting, cable, satellites, cell phones and other telecommunication devices.

From time to time applications are made and rulings are contemplated by the commission. At that stage it is advantageous in our democratic process to have people come forward and present their arguments either in favour of the changes or against the changes or perhaps to bring forward proposed amendments.

In most instances this involves preparation. Sometimes it involves technical work. In all cases it involves some form of communication and meeting with the commission. There would be travel, hotel, food and other expenses involved in the actual presentation plus on occasion considerable costs incurred by experts helping to prepare the presentation. Sometimes it involves a little more in terms of getting the required technical information.

The bill before us is a very short bill. It states that the Broadcasting Act would be amended so that:

The Commission may award interim or final costs of and incidental to proceedings before it and may fix the amount of the costs or direct that the amount be taxed.

In other words, it can investigate to make sure that the costs submitted are fair before they are paid.

The second part of the bill states that:

The Commission may order by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid and by whom they are to be taxed, and may establish a scale for the taxation of costs.

There is also a clause included about establishing the criteria for the awarding of costs.That pretty well finishes the bill.

The bill was derived in the Senate. Some members in this place say that anything coming from the Senate should not be considered. I happen to disagree with that to a certain degree. The Senate is comprised of a number of members who work hard and consider things that are important for this country. They are honourable people and I do not think we should automatically discount them.

However it is regretful that the Prime Minister feels that only he has the capability of choosing them. It would be much better if Canadian citizens could send their representatives to the Senate. If that were the case, they would automatically receive a higher degree of esteem and respect because of the fact that they would be accountable to the people who elected them. Right now they seem to be accountable to only the Prime Minister.

This gives me my present dilemma. We have a Senate that is appointed, the majority by far by the Prime Minister. We have Liberals members here who will undoubtedly be encouraged to vote in favour of the bill, even though it is a private member's bill and normally would not be what we call a whipped vote. That congers of course all sorts of pictures, a bunch of people going ahead and being whipped by their whip to do as they are told and to go where they are told. I do not know whether that is the original meaning of that word, but it certainly means that there is a choice taken away.

I would encourage members to consider what they will do here. I know after this reading it will go again to the committee. Hopefully, there could be a delay from the time the committee gets the bill until it brings it back to the House. Only two things can happen. Either the bill should be passed or it should be defeated.

As I see it, there is no great objection to this. I believe our democratic process would be served by the passing of the bill. It is already true that for hearings that come to the CRTC, based on telecommunications issues, that costs are assessable, but not for broadcasting issues. For broadcasting issues, probably more individuals are directly involved and they would benefit from the ability to make a presentation to the commission. Democracy would be served by passing the bill.

Yet the dilemma that we face is that if we pass it and if the government gets it into its head to zing it through, then we have a situation which puts things out of order.

In my previous life, among other things, I taught programming. One thing I taught my students was that the order in which certain things were done was of critical importance. The order is wrong here because currently a committee of the House is studying the mandate of the CRTC. For us in the House to pass the bill prior to the completion of that study of that mandate would be inappropriate. We are doing things in the wrong order. It is like backing the tractor up to the trailer, then driving away and wondering why it is not following. We forgot to hook it up. This is the same type of situation. We could be running away ahead of the actual mandate of the CRTC as it turns out in effect after this study.

We know there are huge changes in our society right now. The Internet has greatly affected it. What is the role of the CRTC with respect to the Internet which is a huge issue in Canada and around the world? Those issues should be determined before we give the CRTC this privilege.

In essence and in principle, I have no great problem with this. However I would recommend members defeat the bill right now so that we do not get things out of order.

Barring that, I would appeal to members, especially those who serve on the committee, to ensure that their work is done in a timely, orderly fashion and that they delay the reporting of the bill back to the House until such time as the CRTC study has been completed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, again I thank the interpreters without whose intervention I would not have been able to understand a single word the hon. member said. I thank them for accurately transmitting the information.

I listened to the entire speech with considerable interest. One thing occurred to me, and I will speak specifically to the subamendment of the Bloc. Its subamendment would crater the bill. Members of the Bloc want it not to be read now because in their words it does not take into account the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. Those are not the exact words but they indicate that it does not recognize the uniqueness of Quebec.

This is what went through my mind while he was speaking. To take a woman against her will and to force oneself on her is called rape. It is wrong in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Toronto, Montreal, I would think, and Halifax. It should be punished. To go into a person's home to rob and maybe trash and vandalize the place is wrong in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon and so on. It has to be wrong in every town and village in Quebec.

I could go on and on with these different offences. Surely they are wrong. When young people do such things we need to correct them and get them off that. Sometimes the young people do not have a built-in sense of morality which prevents them from doing so. Therefore the purpose of the law is to restrain such people so that they will not do so.

Would the member be very explicit in telling the House how specifically is the need for the justice system different in Quebec from other areas of the country?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear a Liberal member from time to time see the light and agree with what the Canadian Alliance says because clearly the reason he has come to that conclusion is that our arguments are persuasive because they are correct in this case.

It is a false motivation to build legislation based on race and I am very happy that the member had the courage to stand up and say that it is a correct evaluation of the legislation. I encourage the member to put feet to his convictions and vote against the amendment when it is brought forward.

He talked about free votes. I agree with that, especially when it comes from an unelected Senate. There should be a balance. Let us face it, the Prime Minister appointed every member and the Senate is beholden to him.

If the members on this side simply obey the party law, then there is no democracy. My question to the member is very straightforward. Will he have the courage to vote according to his convictions?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for North Vancouver. He gives such lucid examples and persuasive arguments for the case that he makes.

While he was talking, I was wondering if he knew why the Liberals kept doing this. What is their motivation in bringing in this kind of legislation when it seems so wrong?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. He did the same thing all Liberals seem to do: overstate the case on the plus side in the hope that people will believe it and trust they are running the financial ship in a correct way.

Some of the statements he made are not realizable by the average Canadian. He talked about tax cuts. The Canada pension plan has been mismanaged by the Liberals since it was instituted in 1966. The original rates were set too low and there was consequently a huge overrun on the liabilities of the fund. That is now being corrected and it is about time. However it has resulted in a huge increased payment for both employers and employees to try to make up the shortfall.

Actual money in the pocket for most Canadian wage earners is not significantly different from what it was three or four years ago. The actual tax reductions are mostly words. Sure, they have been reduced in some areas but in other areas they have increased. The net result is that there is no more money in the economy. There is no more money in the pockets of people trying to provide for their families.

I would like the hon. member to set the record straight. Let us deal honestly with the Canadian people.

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to respond to the budget. It is interesting that the budget we just had in December was just days before the House recessed for the winter, and so we have had a bit of time to think about the implications of the budget and also, of course, the budget before it.

I would like to address, primarily, the need for tax reduction and the fact that the government in its budget documents, both the one prior to the election in the year 2000 and this one, talks about tax reductions but which we do not see in reality. As a result, it does not really affect the economy. As a result, we have a recession.

We can say that there is a worldwide recession. We can say that we are so closely attached to the Americans that because their economy has been reduced so has ours. Yet, over the last number of years, when things were going really well, where the Americans had a really robust economy and we had a spinoff from that, the finance minister was quite pleased to say that they did this, that they created jobs, that they have a budget surplus and that they have been able to pay down some debt. He took all the credit when things were going good but he seems to be somewhat reluctant to take the blame when things do not go as well. He should really make up his mind on which direction he wants to go and tell us outright whether he is responsible for Canada's budgetary process or not. I believe he is.

I want to talk about taxes. It is not plagiarism if it is acknowledged. I found an interesting poem and I will acknowledge where I got it. It actually comes from a constituent in Medicine Hat, so the member for Medicine Hat actually is the source of this poem, via a constituent. It is so good that I entered it into my computer. While I was thinking about what I was going to say, I tried to find that poem and here it is. Pardon me if I look down once in a while to see the screen as I read it. The poem is very appropriate because it shows how we are overwhelmed by taxes in this country. It reads:

Tax the farmer. Tax his dad, Tax whate'er he ever had; If he's broke, it's just too bad, Tax him hard, till he looks sad.

Go ahead and tax the man. Tax his dog and hired hand; Tax his cow. Tax her milk, Tax his bed, tax his quilt;

Tax his pig, tax his pen, Tax his flocks, tax his hen; Tax his corn, tax his wheat, Tax his wagon, tax its squeak;

Tax his wife, tax his boy, Tax whatever gives him joy; Tax the man who works for him, 'Fore his paycheque gets too thin.

Tax his buildings, tax his chattels, Tax his truck and all its rattles; Tax his stock and tax his cash; Tax him double if he's rash.

Tax his light, tax his power, Tax his payroll by the hour; If he's making more than rent, Add another five percent;

Tax whate'er he has to sell, If he hollers--tax his yell.

We make fun of this but taxes are on us all the time. I would like to give a simple example. I pulled up to the service station the other day and was very pleased to see that gasoline in my home town was finally under 50¢ a litre. It has been awhile since we had gasoline prices that low. I paid 49.5¢ a litre to fill up my vehicle. The service station had a little sticker showing the tax component. It was 10¢ for federal taxes; 9¢ for provincial taxes; and 7¢ for GST. I used my trusty calculator to work backward from that and discovered that what I was paying for gasoline was 27.26¢ because the rest was tax.

We make an error when we think about taxes. We say that half of our gas price is taxes. Everyone thinks we are being taxed at 50%, which is high but we can live with it, but that is not accurate.

When we go into a store and buy something for a dollar, the 7% tax is 7¢ because we take 7% of the dollar on the value of the purchase and then we take 8% of the dollar and add another 8¢ because it is 8% of the value of the purchase.

Because the pump price always shows the inclusive price with taxes, we do not see how much the tax is. The pump price should say 27¢ and then the till should add the taxes. We would then be able to see what we actually are paying in taxes. The number works out to be 27.26¢, which is the base price. Nine cents of 27¢ is about one-third, so 33% is provincial tax. We then add the federal tax which is 10¢ on 27¢, around 37%. Those two taxes together are 70%, not 50%, and then we add the 7% GST. Incredibly the GST is computed on the price of the fuel, plus the provincial sales tax and plus the federal sales tax. When we buy gasoline, the GST is added to the actual taxes. We are paying the GST tax on the other two taxes. That works out to around 12% of the value of gasoline because it is 7% of the total.

The total tax on gasoline is 82%. In other words, when I buy a litre of gasoline I am paying just about as much to the government as I am to the manufacturer and the explorer, the person who found the gas in the first place, all the processing, the hauling of it, the transportation, marketing and everything.

I contend that taxes in this country are killing our economy. The finance minister has consistently failed to recognize that high taxes kill jobs. Over and again it has been one of the main reasons for a recession.

If I were to ask the finance minister that question, he would get up and say that he has reduced taxes and he would talk about all the tax reductions.

I will not repeat what has been said in the House so often already, I will simply refer to it. The $100 billion that the finance minister claims he has given in tax relief is actually overstated by over 100%. We could again say that it should be 50% less but, as an amateur mathematician, the number should be around $47 billion in actual tax relief. He has announced that but most Canadians have not felt it yet. If we take that amount, which he has overstated, it is pretty equal to that. He has overstated the amount by about 100%.

It just so happens that in the wonderful world of economics talking about something does not have any real effect. It has a small psychological effect but the fact is that we need to actually leave the money in the pockets of the people who earn it so they can spend it.

I often thought about whether it was better for me to send the money to Ottawa, or in my case, because I am an Albertan, to our capital, Edmonton, and let them spin it around. A little bit would spill over. A little would be given to welfare and to other benefits to other people. What would be better? Is it better to do that or, if my roof is leaking and I need to phone somebody to fix it, that I give the repairman the money? He has a job that not only provides for his family but also contributes to the tax base. I think it is way better to have people who are earning their own way.

My plea today is simple. Let us cut taxes in a real way, let us not just talk about it, so that our economy will get a boost and we will once again have a dollar that will be close to being equal to the American dollar and also a standard of living that stops eroding relative to our neighbours to the south. I reject that particular argument that the finance minister always uses.

[Coinage, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadian coins have on them “D.G. Regina”, which is Latin for “by the grace of God Queen”, all coins, that is, except the 2001 dime known as the volunteer dime. Ironically, this coin was unveiled by His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales.

Will the minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint assure Canadians that he will restore the recognition of God and the Queen on all future coinage, or is it now Liberal policy to obliterate these time honoured references?