Ken Epp

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question. That is exactly why it was removed. It presupposes the guilt of the person before it goes to committee. That is why we would rather have the motion state that there was a disclosure and let the committee determine whether there was something untoward in that action.

I will answer his question. Do I understand the word premature? Yes, I do.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I view that simply as a tactic to reduce my speaking time.

I said to many people on that occasion that our reason for voting was because we were going to spend a week on it. It was an important issue for thousands of Canadians. The Liberal government had the choice to decide whether we would use that time debating or whether we would use that time voting, because I believe it had advance notice that we would oppose that bill with every means possible. We did that because the government said “Closure. Time allocation. This is finished”. We had no choice but to spend that time voting because of the importance of the bill to members of our society.

I plead for better democracy. I plead for giving our members an opportunity to really be heard and not to be ignored. I insist that all of us in the House, elected by the people in our ridings, are here to do a job.

In conclusion, I would amend the motion that has been put by the hon. member. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word “premature”.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, please stop your stopwatch.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have just related the story. I was there, the member was not. I was there and that is exactly what happened, and there were other people who heard it.

Mr. Speaker, I will not listen to the heckling member on the other side who does not want to listen to facts. I want to talk about the issue that we have before us.

It is on issues like this on which democracy is trampled by a majority government. I say this as kindly as I can to Liberal members. They have an obligation, as do you, Mr. Speaker, to preserve the democratic process. When there are decisions made which run roughshod over the opinions and the ideas of other members, the frustration level grows.

In the instance that we have before us, I would say that it is not only because the member for Lakeland is in the riding adjacent to mine that I stand in his defence, but because of his proximity I frequently run across little things that he does in the riding. Sometimes people come to me and say “We have such and such a problem” and I ask “Where do you live?” and find out that the person lives in the other member's riding. So we have some dealings back and forth.

When the hon. member stands in the House and says “When I did what I did I thought I was doing what was correct because we had voted in committee that this was to be a totally public process”, my inclination is to accept that what the member is saying is in fact how he interpreted it at the time.

There is the other argument, which I will let other members make, that even though the committee voted that this was to be totally public, in fact the final report was not to be released before it was tabled in the House. That argument could be made and I will let others make it. It has validity.

However, I have a very serious question to pose. Every committee that I have been on since I was first elected in 1993 has issued a number of reports and I cannot think of very many which actually remained secret until they were tabled in the House.

There were a number of times when I was quite convinced that indeed Liberal members were talking to the press about specific issues which were in finance committee reports. There were some things which were in the reports that were leaked to the press before they even came to the committee in the wording that was quoted in the press. No other member even knew about it, except for the chairman of the committee.

That is almost impossible to prove and I can understand why the Speaker has been in a dilemma on numerous occasions when we have pointed it out. Not being able to prove which individual leaked it, as there is no paper path, it is very difficult to follow it through. The Speaker has, on every instance, until this one, ruled that that is the way it is. This time that is not the way it is.

This time we are told the member for Lakeland must stand in front of a tribunal to defend his actions. In his own words, the only difference between what he did and what the Liberal members have done over and over again is that he did it openly, in front of cameras, at a press conference, whereas they did it surreptitiously. That is the only difference.

The last budget is a perfect example. How many reports were in the press in the weeks leading up to the budget? It used to be that ministers of finance would resign if the budget was leaked, and that was not very long ago. But in this particular round of government, with the Liberal finance minister that we have, all of these ideas are floated out there and then in the end we are amazed to find that the budget speech given on Monday was fairly accurately reported in the press the Saturday before.

There are no repercussions any more. It seems to me that the true lack of respect for this democratic process has come from the government on the other side because it enjoys a majority. Government members won the election. They will not win the next one if I can help it, but they won the last election and they won the one before that, so they have more members than we do.

I appeal to them that in order to gain and to keep the respect of the Canadian citizens for this boardroom we must respect each other. As I must respect government members, I appeal to them to respect those of us on this side and stop routinely defeating every amendment that we put forward.

There were a lot of people who wondered about the long Nisga'a vote. I have had conversations with people. They asked me if that was the best we could do in parliament, to stand up and sit down for four days. In my more jovial moods I said that maybe somebody recognized that I needed the exercise.

However, there is a deeper answer. Yes, we did vote on many amendments to Nisga'a, not only because of members of our party, but because of the people we represent and in fact thoughtful Canadians right across the country who were very opposed to that bill in the form in which it was presented.

We had a few substantial amendments which would have ameliorated the concerns, but the Liberal government, with its majority, would have none of those. We said that the issue was so important that one way or another we would spend at least a week of the time of parliament on the issue, not one hour or two hours.

The government has the habit of using time allocation. I have a list here. There are several bills which have been before the House on which the Reform Party has only had maybe 30 minutes of debate before the government has invoked time allocation. There is no respect for it. So I said to some people that when we have—

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

It is not acceptable that the chairman can do things which are straight out and out undemocratic.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to stand in Canada's House of Commons once again in defence of democracy and in defence of the people whom we are here to represent.

The issue before us this afternoon is a very serious one. It has to do with an allegation that my colleague from Lakeland has disclosed a document which was marked confidential. It was brought to the attention of the House. The Speaker has ruled that in fact there was a prima facie case.

As a result the chairman of the immigration committee has made a motion. Since we have not heard it for a while, I will take this opportunity to read it so that we know what we are debating. The member for London North Centre moved:

That the matter of the premature disclosure of the committee report by the member for Lakeland be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

That is the motion we are debating and the vote that will subsequently be held on this question is whether or not the issue should be referred to the committee.

If we vote against it then it is the end of the matter. If we vote in favour of it then the issue will continue in the procedure and House affairs committee which, after hearing more evidence, getting down to the nitty-gritty and hopefully ferreting out the facts, will come back with a report to the House.

That report, if it finds the member guilty, will probably include some sanctions. If the committee finds the member not guilty then it will so recommend. When the report is brought back to the House there will be another motion that says we concur in the report. Whatever the report says, if that motion carries then the member will have to live by that decision. It is a long, drawn out process.

However, I would like to point out to the people who perhaps are a little fuzzy on what is exactly happening that a deeper principle is being attacked or debated here: the degree to which this place is democratic.

I certainly concur with the fact that in order for us as the board of directors of the corporation called Canada to direct our affairs in a proper way, we must have rules which regulate our debate and regulate our work in committees. It is absolutely important for all of us to agree with and to follow those rules. It must be done in an orderly fashion. There is no question or debate on that part.

We do find from time to time that while members of the Liberal governing party have a majority not only in the House but also in the committees, there are too many occasions in which the rights and privileges of members who are not part of the governing party are ignored, abused and sometimes trampled on.

It is very interesting. I happen to be a member who on one occasion did go to the procedure and House affairs committee. It was one of these cases where we had a huge question on whether or not it was proper or improper to display a little flag on the corner of our desks. Thinking that was fairly proper, I said that I would display my flag. When the Speaker ruled that was not acceptable, I accepted that ruling strictly and totally because of my commitment to making this place work.

I know the Speaker made the ruling. I also know that by the rules, just like in a hockey game, I am not permitted to challenge the Chair. We need some place of final authority. We may not always like it. I will tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, I did not like it, but I did accept it.

Members will notice that since that time some five years ago I have not displayed my little Canadian flag on my desk strictly out of respect for the process, even though I disagree with it.

I suppose I would do the same if I were falsely accused of some bad crime and landed in jail. I would gladly spend my time there because I agree with the process even though I was improperly convicted. I do not know how committed I would be to the cause at that time, but that is how it works in this country.

I think this member has expressed his frustrations in the committee. I have experienced those same frustrations. I remember one occasion when I was substituting in the committee. I guess I have a reputation, at least in our party, of always being available. Whenever someone has to go away on other parliamentary business and there is a vacancy for a representative of our party in a committee, they will phone me and ask if I can go.

I was substituting in committee. We got to the point where we were doing clause by clause consideration of a bill. It was late at night. It was one of those bills that the Liberals thought they had to get through. It was probably 10.30 or 11 o'clock at night. A strange thing happened. The chairman said shall clause so and so pass. My colleague and I said yes and no one said anything else.

You know the rules, Mr. Speaker. If you call for a vote and there are two votes in favour and none against, does the thing pass or fail? The fact of the matter is that if two say yes and no one says no then it should pass.

As I recall, in our motion we were trying to amend a particular clause. Two of us having said yes and no one having said no, I was surprised when the chairman said that the motion was defeated. I said that the chairman could do not do that. He said “I just did”.

We must remember that this was a Liberal chairman of the committee. I said “No, you can't, based on the rules of democracy”. Every organization in this country is based on democracy. When there is a vote, the vote must be declared according to what the members said. Two of us had said yes. Nobody said no. The motion had passed. That is what I said to the chairman, and he said “No”.

At that time the sleepy Liberals woke up when we got into a bit of a shouting match. I would not let it pass because it was wrong that the chairman could overrule the decision of the group. I objected, and I objected louder and louder. I would not let him off the hook.

Finally he said he would call for a vote to see whether or not the ruling of the chair should be upheld. By then the Liberals had awakened. There were one or two more of them than the rest of us. Even though they did not know what had gone on, since they were sleeping, they at that stage, on command, voted in favour and upheld the ruling of the chair.

Consequently I rose in this place on a question of privilege and told the Speaker what had happened in committee. I related the story. I will frankly confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was very disappointed in the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker ruled that the committee was champion of its own affairs. It can do whatever it wants. The ruling stood and our amendment stood defeated because the chairman declared it so, even though the majority of the votes in that particular meeting said it had passed. That was the end of the matter.

This is the first time I have raised it since it happened a number of years ago. The only reason I am talking about it now is that it fits in the context of what we are debating. Again, I did not like the ruling of the Speaker but he is the final authority. I accepted it, and that was the end of the matter, but it is still wrong for a chairman of a committee to have such unilateral power. That is not acceptable.

[Privilege, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

I heard the member say that he was of the very strong conviction that it was a public meeting. He said that was decided by a majority vote of the committee. I am asking him to confirm that was the case. Also, has he looked at the records of the committee and was there a motion subsequent to that which rescinded, reversed or changed that?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the debate that is taking place here today is one of strange interest because so far all of the parties have indicated that they will be supporting the bill but that they have some reservations about it. I sometimes wish we could actually sit down with each other, maybe in a circle somewhere, and hammer these different ideas out.

Of course, one always runs a danger when one expresses himself or herself in this Chamber. Come the next election even the slightest nuance of what one says can be misinterpreted, twisted and turned. Therefore, it is tough for me to formulate the question that I want to ask. It is, I suppose, a philosophical question: What is it that actually drives research?

I think of a number of friends who work not only in medical research but in other areas of research. It seems to me that Canada has a very great stifling effect on medical research, in particular because of the fact that we are so entrenched in the socialistic way of thinking. Somehow we do not think that we should reward those who come up with some really good ideas and inventions in the medical field, whereas we are quite willing to give those rewards to people in other areas where perhaps we are even more successful. Is there a Bill Gates on the horizon in the medical area?

I sometimes wonder why we have this great objection to the fact that somehow private enterprise should be involved in both the delivery of health care services and also in the development of new ways of doing things in the medical area.

I do not know whether the hon. member wants to respond. I believe that in the Canadian context we need to reach a balance. I would like to stop punishing people who do good work in medical research, sending them to the United States, which is the only place they feel they can get a reward for the magnitude of the good work they do. I would like that to end.

[Canada Evidence Act, March 28th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-464, an act to amend the Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, my bill has to do with the expression of dates numerically. For example, 02/03/99 could mean either February 3, 1999 or March 2, 1999. That ambiguity has always been there, but now that our year numbers are also less than twelve there is a great multiplication of ambiguities possible.

My bill would set it out so that if it is not explicitly stated, the numeric designation would be year/month/day and it would end all these ambiguities.

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

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member of the finance committee, I would say that we are here to discuss the budget. I would really like you, Madam Speaker, to ask this member to be relevant to the debate.