Ken Epp

[Privilege, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would have absolutely no difficulty finding unanimous consent that we see the clock as 2:30 p.m.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating is the amendment put forward by the NDP. It would delete the clause with respect to declaring a person a dangerous offender and putting a reverse onus on it.

While the member spoke, she was all over the map. She did not really direct much of her comment to that specific amendment. However, it is true the whole issue of justice is a large issue, and she covered a lot more than just the motion before the House.

If she looks at the amendment to delete the clause on reverse onus, she must agree that this is not a lightly thought motion or concept. First, the list of items under which one is charged is very serious. We are talking about rape and murder, not once, not twice but three times. By then surely people will say that all these things the Liberals put in place to help prevent them from becoming a criminal did not work. All the things they have put in place to help them while in prison to learn not to be criminals have not worked. For the safety of others, we need to keep these people restrained on a more permanent basis for the protection of society. Surely this is not something she would be against.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the member has just said. It is absolutely incredible to me that he is opposed to this so-called reverse onus.

The problem with his argument is that it seems as if, the way it is worded, the accused needs to prove why he should not be deemed a dangerous offender. However, the fact is that the accused has already proven it. The individual was arrested, charged and convicted once and then arrested, charged and convicted twice, and then charged and convicted the third time. The criminal has already proven it.

I do not know why the member feels that it is somehow an unreasonable thing to say that since the individual has proven himself or herself to be dangerous, we will classify him or her as a dangerous offender because the individual has proven that he or she is. What the reverse onus would do is give the accused yet one more chance at that stage. Surely the member would not be against that.

[Unborn Victims of Crime Act, November 21st, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured to introduce my bill, entitled unborn victims of crime. This bill addresses the heart-rending grief that loved ones experience when a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed. My bill would provide a second offence for the injury or death of the unborn child.

I urge all members to support this bill, as it affirms the woman who has chosen to bring her child to term and to give it life.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, November 2nd, 2007]

What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether all hon. members would be satisfied with having a delay of over a week for that briefing? Would that be acceptable and should it then be the following week?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the knowledge that the member displays on these issues.

He seemed to indicate that there was a potential problem with the reverse onus part of the bill. I question that.

If a person comes up to me, points a gun at me, pulls the trigger and misses, and thankfully, to me he is a dangerous guy. I do not want to live next door to a guy like that. I would move away if he did not. That is just the first time.

The legislation being proposed has a person doing things of that nature, attacking women and children. He does it, not once, not twice, but three times. In each instance, we, the people, through the Crown, have already shown that he is dangerous because he was charged and convicted three times.

To me, the reverse onus is almost a misnomer here. We should not say that. Rather we should say that the person has proven to us and courts have convicted him of these charges three time. It is now just an automatic, he is a dangerous offender and ought to be put away for a long time. To me, that is a given.

Yet now we are somehow saying that reverse onus is a violation. Some people say it is because a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, he has been proven guilty three times.

What we ought to be doing is looking at this issue as giving this guy a chance when he really does not deserve it. If he can convince the court, after having been convicted three times, that he is not a dangerous offender, then he can somehow avoid being given that designation.

Could the member enlarge a bit on the nature of his objection to this?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this occasion, if I may, to correct the record. When I was speaking of the prorogations of the House, unfortunately I looked at the wrong place on my notes. The reference that I made to an 11 day existence of a parliament after a throne speech was actually at the defeat of a government and not on a prorogation. I made that error and I would like to correct that record.

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a peripheral item which the member spoke about. A number of members have said, “Oh, this bad Conservative government has prorogued the House and we are into a second session”.

I happened to look up the years when the Liberals were in power, just the years when I was here, since 1993. In the 35th Parliament, the Liberals prorogued the first session after 661 days. In the 34th Parliament the first session was prorogued after only 78 days. There was a total of 11 sitting days and then there was a new throne speech. After 11 days the House was prorogued and everything died. In the 37th Parliament the Liberals prorogued the House twice; there was session one, session two and session three. It seems to me that the Liberals speak with a hollow voice when they complain about our proroguing Parliament in order to have a fresh start and make Parliament work.

That is a rebuttal to all of their comments about proroguing Parliament. It is totally normal. The Liberals always did it. It is just a process that we go through.

[The Environment, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I bring attention to the great work the Conservative government is doing to assure the safe handling of chemicals.

Last year our Ministers of Health and of the Environment introduced the chemical management plan that has begun to review some 23,000 substances that were approved for use in Canada before modern testing methods were available. The plan is the first of its kind in the industrialized world, and that shows that we are a world leader.

Our government is working with groups, like the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, that are a part of the solution. They have created the responsible care program, a unique ethic for the safe and environmentally sound management of chemicals.

The government is taking action where previous Liberal governments failed. Our chemical management plan is a tough, aggressive action plan that will protect our environment and improve the health of all Canadians.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think we could solve the dilemma here by just being collegial, as we like to be in a minority Parliament. I would suggest that you simply ask for unanimous consent that the request to share the time be granted.