Ken Epp

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification on Motions Nos. 83 to 86, 136 and 137. I do not believe that those were properly disposed of. Do we not have to vote and do that preliminary part? I just want clarification.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact there is this magnanimity in the House right now, I think there was a misunderstanding previously. I would like to ask that you again ask for unanimous consent for what the hon. member for North Vancouver asked just moments ago.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this place today on behalf of the constituents of Elk Island, whom I have the honour to represent, in defence of democracy and in defence of our country.

The question we are dealing with today is that of democracy. What is democracy? I humbly submit that the Liberals have it wrong. They somehow feel that democracy is when they get their own way, even though they received only 38% of the popular vote in the last election. They feel that with a majority in this place they can ram everything through.

That time allocation has been invoked on this bill is despicable. We are at second reading and debate will end before my speech is over. That will be the end of second reading. However, by the force of their majority membership the Liberals have already closed off debate on third reading, which has not yet begun. We have not yet debated the amendments which were made at committee and already the Liberals have put time allocation on third reading. That was the vote which was held earlier this afternoon, which all Liberals were forced to vote for. I find this totally despicable. It is anti-democratic. For the Liberals to do that on this important bill is unconscionable.

I know that the technical name of the bill is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, but I would like to call it the pump primer bill. We had a well on the farm where I grew up in Saskatchewan. The rule was that we always kept the primer pail full because if there was no water in the primer pail the pump would not work. Water was poured into the pump to prime it and when it was running the first thing we did was to replenish the pail so that the next time we went for water the pump would work. The Liberals are doing that with this bill. Bill C-2 is a primer bill.

The Liberals, I believe, are aware of the fact that after the next election they will no longer have a majority. They are trying to increase their chances of electoral success by doing everything possible in Bill C-2 to stack the odds in their favour. The Liberals are doing this with a number of different provisions in the bill, including the continuation of patronage appointments in the election process. This will hopefully win the favour of people in their ridings who could make money during the election by being good appointees of the government. That is one element of this bill which should not be passed. This is, after all, a democracy. This is where we want to hear the will of the people. However, the government does not know anything about democracy.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister. I came across this accidentally when I was looking at Hansard . Last week the Prime Minister, in response to a question from a Bloc member, said “I allowed a free vote in the House of Commons”. We do not have to be very brilliant to see through that statement. In other words, the Prime Minister has the power to tell the people “You vote the way I tell you. When I choose, I will allow you to vote freely”.

I believe very strongly in the principle of free votes in the House of Commons. I am very pleased that the new Canadian alliance has that in its policies, as did the Reform Party. I am proud to say that in every vote in this House I have voted according to what I believed was best for my constituents. Not once have I taken a voting order from the party hierarchy in Ottawa or anywhere else, contrary to what is done by members opposite. This is the essence of democracy. Does this government believe in democracy? No, it does not.

Let me give the House another example. We now have over 500,000 names on petitions asking the government to deal with the issue of child pornography. At the present time child pornography is legal in British Columbia. It is making inroads across the whole country because of this spineless government which is not willing to take action. We have 500,000 citizens who have said “Do something”, but the government does not do a thing. It just sits on it and lets it slide by. In a democracy, the wishes of the people, which have been so clearly expressed, would result in some action that would reflect the wishes of Canadian citizens. That is an area which is very important and the government is doing nothing.

I am absolutely appalled at the fact that the government will not accept even simple amendments. Earlier today the minister in charge of this bill said, off the record, that the reason the government had to invoke time allocation was because of all the deleterious amendments put forward by the opposition.

There is another way to speed up the passage of the bill, and that is to accept some of the amendments. To automatically assume that those amendments, because they come from one of the four opposition parties, are not worthy of respect or implementation is a false assumption which the government arrogantly assumes. Instead of listening to the amendments and changing some of the rules, it jams it through.

On command, it gets all of its members to rise, one at a time, when their strings are pulled, to vote for time allocation to shut down the debate on the democratic process in this country. I would be ashamed if I were a Liberal. In fact, if I were a Liberal I would hide somewhere, put my head under a blanket and hope that no one would ever find me. This is absolutely atrocious.

There are interesting concepts in this bill that need to be corrected. There are very, very important things. I would like to say that the government's lack of response on these meaningful amendments will backfire. It is saying that there will continue to be the rule of 50 members per party, and all of these other things. I do not have the time to go into them. We have finished the debate. It is done. It is closure.

I will use my last 30 seconds to make a simple prediction. The government thinks that it will jam this bill through with all of the advantages that will stack the deck toward the Liberals in the next election. That is going to backfire. Let it be said that this was first said here. I predict that, at minimum, the Liberals will be brought down to a minority level government the next time. At maximum, they will be where the Conservatives were after the election of 1993.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is particularly important in a debate when we are rushed for time to stick to the topic. I would ask you to ask the member to be relevant.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

We did.

[Canada Elections Act, February 22nd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 26.1 and 26.2;”

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek clarification. I ask the member whether this also applies to businesses which are operated in the name of unions?

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when an automobile manufacturer finds a flaw in a sample of vehicles, then all of the vehicles are recalled and the fault is corrected.

A one-half per cent sample of the files in HRDC has shown an 80% rate of accountability failure. It is statistically valid to conclude that about 24,000 of the 30,000 files have faulty administration or documentation.

How can the Prime Minister reduce this to $251.50?

[Leukemia Awareness Month, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the privilege of standing again in our House of Commons to talk about an issue which is very important to Canadians.

First of all I commend the hon. member who has brought this motion forward. I have a great deal of respect and interest in people who pursue research into finding the cure for many different diseases, so I am on the right wavelength in terms of supporting the intent of such a motion.

One needs to ask how one can best promote both the awareness of any particular disease or situation, and how one can best foster an environment both economically and academically to search for cures for these various diseases. This one focuses on one particular disease, blood cancer or leukemia.

I was asked to represent our party in this debate tonight. I stopped to think of how many people I know who have had leukemia. I may be wrong but I thought of four. I have been wracking my brain trying to think of whether or not there are more. In all instances, as the hon. member stated, when the news is first given, it is like a death sentence. Several people in our own family have had cancer: both my wife and her father and several others. It is devastating because it is a disease for which at this stage there is no known cause. Hence there is not a cure that has any degree of certainty, although they have been doing research and great strides have been made. It is very encouraging to realize that now some 70% of children who are diagnosed with leukemia actually will be survivors.

I have thought of two people who as young adults were diagnosed with leukemia and who are still living. Two have gone into remission of the four I was able to think of. One is a person in my community who has a wife and two young children. Frankly when he got the word that he had leukemia it blew this young family away. He went for treatment and I believe with his extraordinary faith in God for his divine healing he has been in remission now for a number of years. I saw him not long ago and I was very pleased with his appearance. I do not know if it is possible but he even looked healthier than I do. He is a little less rotund but is very healthy. We are grateful for that.

There were two young fellows on my list both of whom were diagnosed in their late teens and neither of whom survived. Both young men were very close to us. They were friends of ours. They were contemporaries of our children. They did not make it. They were diagnosed, went through the treatment regimen with a lot of agony and suffering and eventually did not make it.

No doubt this is a disease which requires urgent attention. As a government we must promote research and development in these medical areas. We need to concentrate on pockets of research in the country so that people who are of like mind can share their ideas and promote their research. I would like to see that happen.

With respect to calling a month of awareness, I am neither here nor there on it. The member is proposing that June be declared leukemia awareness month. April already is cancer awareness month. We are very aware of it.

In fact, I go to jail every April for the annual jail and bail fundraising that the Cancer Society does in our area. I have had the misfortune the last couple of times of having the Liberal candidate whom I defeated be the judge when I was arrested. When they bring me in he is not very kind to me. He always sets the bail really high.

Last April when they took me in, they arrested me and put handcuffs on me. As I said, I am rather rotund and the handcuffs actually dug into my skin and pushed right against the bone. I stood in front of the judge and said, “This is prisoner abuse”. He said, “That will be $500 for speaking disrespectfully of our police force”. I said, “That's not fair”. He said, “Five hundred dollars for talking back to the judge” and then he put me into the jail. I said, “This is no real jail. If it was a real jail there would be a colour TV”. He said, “Another 500 bucks”.

I had to raise $1,500 for bail to get out of jail which of course my friends helped me to do and I was able to get out of jail. All of these different activities not only raise awareness of the disease but they also raise money in order to promote research.

I have an inclination to say that leukemia awareness month should be tied in with the general cancer awareness in April. That would be my preference.

However, I would have no objection to setting aside a separate month even though we have only 12 months and, as has been mentioned, every month is an awareness month for more than one cause at this stage.

The message I would like to leave is one that has more to do with government involvement than with declaring a month a particular month. We all have to do as much as we can to promote research and development, to educate particularly our young people, and to provide a climate for them that promotes research. Perhaps I should not say this in the context of this debate but I cannot stay away from it. We need to reduce taxes so that our research scientists and our young people can find greater motivation to stay here and work together to find cures for diseases.

Leukemia is an interesting disease because considerable progress has been made in this area. Perhaps the research in leukemia will eventually be the key that unlocks the door to wider research and gives us more clues on how to attack cancer generally.

I commend the member for bringing forward the motion. Even having this one hour of debate in the House today helps to increase the awareness of people.

There are two kinds of people in our country. Those who have had experience with cancer, perhaps leukemia, are very aware of the disease and the need for research. There are others who fall into the category of “it will not happen to me or to my family”. Those are the ones we should target. Those are the ones all of us should help to make more aware. We should appeal to them to work together as Canadians. Whether it be through our tax system or voluntary charitable donations, let us all work together to find a cure.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is difficult. I do not use notes when I speak. I try to use my head instead. It is difficult to keep the train of thought of going but I think I will manage.

There are a number of occasions in those rules when two-thirds are needed. For example, a motion that has already been dealt with cannot be revisited unless two-thirds of the people present in the meeting vote in favour of it. Some instances require more than 50%.

The requirement is clear. The people of the province proposing a question should know in advance what is the number. We expect at least 60% of people vote. We will not consider this a clear vote, an expression of the people, unless there is at least 50% plus one, 60% or 66%. Whatever it is, it must be determined in advance and it must be fair.

This is a slight diversion from the topic but it has to do with the mathematics involved. We very seldom have a 100% turnout at an election. Sometimes it is as high as 80% in some ridings and it is less than 50% in others. The question in a democracy is how to represent the will of the majority. It is possible, if people do not show up to vote in an election, that the proportion of those who do show up could be a skewed sample.

One could use a truly random sample. For example, we could look at the HRD scandal before us these days. Apparently the auditors there used a random sample. Then it is quite accurate to attribute the characteristics of the sample to the whole population. However, in a general election we do not have a random sample. People come out to vote if they feel strongly about an issue. Those who do not feel very strongly might just not bother. They are not as highly motivated to attend.

For example, in some ridings people who are really against the government might show up in greater numbers to vote to kick the government out than those who are tepidly in favour of the government. That poses a risk to the sitting government member in a riding because he or she may not get supporters out in the same numbers as those who want to arrange for the turfing of that member. That happens particularly in an election or in a vote which is as emotion bound as that of a secession vote.

I know that my time is almost up, but I want to use the closing minutes to say a few words to the people of Quebec. I do not think I will be successful in persuading the separatist members here, although I wish I could.

Physically we have to live together. We cannot take a giant chainsaw, cut around Quebec and float Quebec away so there will be some distance between us. Physically we will stay together, no matter what kind of political arrangement we have. We need to make sure that we have the best possible political arrangement for that situation.

I believe that people in the province of Quebec, as in all other provinces, should be able to so arrange their affairs within confederation so they do not want to leave. The policies of the Reform Party, the policies of the new Canadian alliance, are such that I believe Quebecers could live with them if they took the time to read them, study them and give them careful thought, and not simply say with a prejudiced point of view “We are not going to listen to them”.

I plead for a fair hearing of what we are actually saying. They can look it up on the website and ask for literature. We are certainly willing to share it. I know that we can come to a place where we can live together co-operatively.