Ken Epp

[Petitions, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am honoured to present today adds to the 300,000 names already presented in the House on the issue of child pornography.

I am very pleased with the people in my riding who to this date have submitted 4,311 names on this petition requesting that the government should immediately take steps to re-enact the provisions of the criminal code which make the possession of child pornography illegal in Canada.

[Petitions, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand in my place today to represent my constituents by presenting two petitions.

The first one has to do with discrimination under the Income Tax Act against families that choose to have one parent stay at home. They ask that the tax benefits be the same for single income families as they are for double income families. There are 229 names on this petition and we have had a number before.

[Speech From The Throne, October 15th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I happen to represent a riding that has a lot of farmers in it, although admittedly the farmers in my area are more mixed farmers than grain farmers. We certainly are aware of the crisis that is taking place on the prairies with farmers. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on a couple of points.

First, we lost the benefit of the Crow rate under the Liberal government. I am rather surprised at that because these days we are talking about the fishing rights of the natives, apparently based on an agreement which was some 200 years old. It is said to last in perpetuity and cannot be changed. It seems to me the Crow rate agreement was also an agreement in perpetuity, but the government just said with impunity that it would wipe it out and give them a bit of a cash payment which hopefully would cover it.

Could the member comment on to what degree the cash payment came even close to covering the long term costs of farmers transporting their grain to the ports?

My second question is with regard to transportation problems. When I was a youngster my dad used to ask “How come when I buy a combine or a tractor that is manufactured in Ontario I have to pay the freight to get it from Ontario to Saskatchewan, but when I sell them my wheat I have to pay the freight to send their wheat back to Ontario?” I would like the member to comment on those two points.

[Trade, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how western farmers are getting the shaft from the government. Western cattle producers facing a 6% tariff from the Americans spent their own money to travel to the U.S. to hammer out proposals to end the dispute. But the trade and agriculture ministers refuse to listen and do nothing to defend the farmers.

Will the the minister act immediately to implement the ranchers' solutions which they hammered out to end this discrimination tariff?

[Political Party Advertising, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I rose in the House I hesitated to say that I was glad to speak because democracy was being trampled on in the House. I was ashamed to stand in the House in those circumstances. Today, however, I am indeed proud to stand on behalf of the people of my riding of Elk Island, the most wonderful riding in the whole country, notwithstanding your riding, Mr. Speaker. I represent my constituents and all Canadians in what I am going to say right now.

I believe that in Private Members' Business we come closer to democracy here than in any other part of parliament. The rest of it, unfortunately, is too often just a total sham.

I want to first congratulate the member from Saskatchewan, the province where I grew up and received my good start in life, for bringing the motion forward for debate. I am also very pleased that it is votable since I am one who believes that every time a private member brings a motion it is because he or she feels it is important to him or her and it should be voted on. I am in favour of that. I am also anticipating that democracy will again work and the members here will soundly reject the motion.

I do not think this is a very well-founded motion at all, and I will give the House my reasons. I want to first assure the member that I am not reacting in a partisan way, even though in the letter he sent to all members of parliament he used about two-thirds of the letter to describe the occurrence with Lori Foster and the Reform Party's use of her likeness in its advertising. He then put a little disclaimer at the end and said that the example he used was not about the Reform Party, that it was just an example. I will take his word that he just used that as an example, and in the good spirit of parliament's last day, I will show him that I am not going to respond in a partisan way either.

However, I am going to speak against the principles of the bill because I think they are really not well-founded. It is important for us to hear once again what the motion is. To all of those Liberal members listening, to all of the other fellow members on the opposition side here and to those millions and millions of Canadians watching on CPAC, whose services we so appreciate, I want to again read the motion.

It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, political parties should in their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the likeness of any individual without having first obtained the written consent of that individual.

Some of the words that I have spoken show the basic flaw in the motion. Without the exclusion of members of parliament and others who have deliberately chosen to be in the public domain, the words “using the name or the likeness of any individual”, unfortunately, if this were passed, would include them.

The first thing this motion would need is an amendment to say that any of us who dare to stand for public office, who dare to stick our faces in the cameras or our mouths into the microphones, are open game. I accept that. Having run for public office, I know that my constituents are going to hold me accountable. I know that I am going to be held accountable in this place. I know from time to time I am going to be on television.

I am not on television very often because I have a problem with not saying enough controversial stuff. Unfortunately, the media only likes to pick on controversy and seems to somehow avoid the hours and hours of debate that we in the House engage in, which is sound, solid and based on good reasoning and good analysis. Consequently, I personally am not on television very much.

However, I certainly expect that, whether it is on television or radio, in our own ads promoting the Reform Party, that even some of my political opponents will want to say, “Guess what”, and then they will use my name. My opponents will say, “Guess what the hon. member for Elk Island said” and they will then use my name and maybe my picture. I think that is fair game.

I would love the exposure that the Liberals and, if there are any left, the Conservatives and the NDP would give in my riding or elsewhere across the country by saying “This is what the hon. member said”, because if I said something, I hope I meant it. I hope I do not say things I do not mean.

If the opposition is going to give me additional exposure for having said something that I believe, I would want thank them for the free advertising. The hon. member over here is objecting.

I repeat what I said. If I have said something that I believe in, and hopefully I will not say things I do not believe in, then if somebody else quotes me and says this is what this member believes, and if that enters into political debate and helps Canadian voters make choices on whom to support, then let them use it. Maybe that is why they never use my particular statements.

We need the amendment so that we do not say any individual. Unfortunately, those of us who are in public life should not be excluded. It is part of fair debate. He mentioned that, but his motion does not reflect what he said in his speech.

What happens if we do make an amendment? Who draws the line? What about one of my staffers? What if he or she says something? I personally think that is okay because I hope my staffers also honestly reflect the things that are coming out of our office and our basic philosophical framework. If there is an inconsistency, it deserves to be exposed. I have no problem with that.

What about my wife or my family? I have a little more of a problem with that. Yet sometimes people's families say things or become involved in certain functions or activities which are perhaps in the public interest if the other member of the family is running for public office.

I would speak against this motion because it is unworkable. First, it is too inclusive. Second, it is unworkable. Who is going to determine where the line should be drawn?

We are engaging in an exercise to reduce debate, communication and dialogue, which is unfortunate. I really think that as Canadians we are strengthened by dialogue.

Every year we have young people coming from other parts of the country on student exchange programs. Quite often they come from Quebec, but they also come from eastern Canada. One thing I have observed is that when these young people move across the country and dialogue is increased, we get a much better understanding of each other. Any motion such as this, which would say that we cannot use a person's name or likeness in a debate or in fair comment, would reduce communication. Therefore, I again urge members of the House to vote against the motion. We have to have as much communication as possible to come to a fuller and better understanding of each other.

The last thing I want to say relates specifically to the case of Lori Foster. I know she was upset because what she said she obviously believed in. However, her statement was used in the promotion of a political party in which she did not believe. I respect her for that. I think I understand why she would be disheartened by this use of her likeness. However, the fact of the matter is that I do not believe she was misquoted. I do not believe she was in any way misrepresented.

I really wish that we could get away from this prejudice, and I am not applying that statement to her. I am speaking of us as individuals. We sometimes prejudge things, not by what is said, but rather by who says it. That is judgmental and prejudicial. I wish we could move away from that. I wish we could get down to debating ideas and avoid personal attacks. I really wish the message that was given that day on the CBC program would have simply been used as factual information in the case of the debate. Very frankly, I and my colleagues were among that group which wanted to address the questions that Lori Foster opened up on that particular occasion. We did that in all sincerity and in all honesty.

I am looking forward to the day when unemployment in this country is reduced dramatically, because we have a government on the other side that does real things in this country to solve that problem.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 11th, 1999]

That is incredible.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all these questions being allowed to stand, does that mean we do not get to hear any answers at all until the fall?

[United Alternative, June 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want a government that listens to the people and reflects their views on issues like pornography.

They want a government that actually supports health care instead of just talking about it.

They want a government that provides real protection for law-abiding citizens and not just window dressing with concurrent sentences for multiple offenders.

Most of all they want lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes. They are sick and tired of being taxed to death. They are tired of a finance minister bombarding them with empty words while they are in the crunch with empty wallets.

They want a government which gives new opportunities for economic independence and prosperity. They want a government in which their representatives, the MPs that they elected, are effective and not just the Prime Minister's robots.

Last night's vote shows Canadians that they do have an alternative to this ineffective, arrogant, tax loving Liberal government. I invite everyone who is like minded to get on board. The train is leaving the station and Joe Clark is not on it.

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, did I use those words? My apologies. I must have gotten carried away. That type of language is not usually even in my thinking. I am genuinely sorry.

All of us must do our job. We must never permit our eagerness to get out of here to supersede the urgency and importance of doing our job and doing it right. I am embarrassed to be part of a parliament that is so eager to get out of this place and go back to the ridings, as important as that is. Do those members have holidays planned? What do they have planned? I do not know.

I do not have anything planned. My plans are to come back here on Sunday night and to be here Monday to Friday. I am going to be here in any event because I have it booked. I have work to do here. I am here to represent the people.

It is absolutely shameful that the members over there are so eager to get out of here that they will not work on a bill for a little longer and perhaps accept some amendments from the opposition that will fix the flaws. Then at the end of the day we could stand up proudly before our children and our grandchildren, before Canadians from coast to coast and say that we did a good job when we were in Ottawa.

Instead the Liberals are going to be hanging their heads in shame and saying “We should not have done that. We should have listened to other heads, but instead ours were totally clouded. They were on the other side and we assumed that they did not know what they were talking about”.

Those Liberals over there have a lot of wisdom, but there is also some wisdom on this side. If we worked together we would get much better legislation on behalf of the Canadian people.

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, often in this House when we speak we say we are so pleased to stand here. I often think of it still. This is a place of honour. I am called the hon. member for Elk Island, as all members here are called honourable. I wish that I could on this occasion also stand to say that I am really happy to speak to this motion. I am not.

The motion the government House leader has brought forward is that we should suspend Private Member's Business. That is the motion, that we should now talk about Bill C-49, for which the time for debate ended earlier today.

I think it is unconscionable. For years and years and years the government front bench, whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals, has controlled Private Members' Business. Here we are into Private Members' Business speaking about a very important bill, that of double taxation for mechanics who have to buy tools in order to make their living. This motion is now pre-empting that very important bill.

Bill C-502 is important to Canadians. The bill has been brought forward by a private member, a bill that should properly be dealt with in Private Members' Business. The government over there says “Private Members' Business nothing. Democracy, who cares about it?” All the Liberals are about is getting their own way and pushing their way around like schoolyard bullies. That is not acceptable. It is wrong.

There are a couple of ways of getting Bill C-49 passed. The government ran twice on its red book platform of making government more accountable, making government more democratic, doing things that are right according to the rules of the House and everything. This is the same government which is now invoking closure on a bill which is incomplete. That is why we are opposing it.

We are not pulling a shenanigan today. We are simply exercising a parliamentary process. We are exercising a duty in order to ensure that the flaws in Bill C-49 are corrected. The government wants to invoke closure and just ram it through because the Liberals want to go on their golfing vacations. They want to go away. They do not want to be here.

We are in deep trouble if members of parliament replace the urgency and the need for running the government on behalf of the people of Canada with the urgency to get out of Ottawa. I am willing to stay here until the end of September if I have to in order to correct the flaws in the bill. It is shameful that the government just snubs its nose at the democratic process, at debate, invokes closure and brings in these bills.

This is not a new thing. It happens every June. It happens every December. The government waits until then for the things it knows are not popular and not right and it hopes that the opposition will tire. The Liberals hope that we will not care enough and that we too will want to join them on the golf course. Well, we do not. We are here to represent the people.

This is not the time to debate Bill C-49. There are some very important flaws in that bill which must be corrected. It is our job as the official opposition, indeed it is our job as members of parliament and it should have been the job of the senators, to fix the errors in that bill which make it unacceptable.

The bill is unacceptable to women. Aboriginal women are being cut off from the rights that every other Canadian has. They are being cut off by the bill.

We proposed an amendment to it. Of course the government. invoked closure. It invoked its “Let us get our MPs to stand and vote when we pull their strings”. The Liberal members got up and passed it without the amendment. As a result, aboriginal women will not have the rights that are rightfully theirs because of the lack of the amendment.

I can think of other things, such as the right to confiscate land, to foreclose on land and all sorts of different things. We are dealing with people whose right of lease is being transferred and they have no rights.

It is incredible that the government is not willing to go through the democratic process. As I said, there is a very simple way to get this bill passed and that is to correct its several little flaws. That is all we are asking.

Often when we use words they have a tendency to reflect on ourselves so I want to be very careful when I use the word, but an element of arrogance is involved in a person who says “I have it absolutely right and you do not know a thing”. That is what they are saying over there. The Liberals are saying that the members of the opposition do not know that there are some flaws in this bill.

As we heard today, the hon. member for Skeena has had many representations from people in the native community, from women and others. He has had representations from people who live on lands adjoining the native reserves. Those people have brought forward some very important concerns which ought to be corrected. What is the point of ramming this bill through and getting it wrong?

One of my former bosses had a little placard on the bulletin board in his office which read “If you don't have time to do it right, when will you find time to do it again?” It is fine when we are working in an office somewhere to say that we have to take the time to do it right, otherwise we will have to find more time to do it again. When we are dealing with issues like this, doing it again is not a tenable option. Once a bill is passed into law, it is usually very difficult to backtrack and to correct the errors and flaws in it.

All we are asking is that the government simply do what it promised to do and which it is failing to do. Exercise a true, democratic process here and not the bullying tactics. Do not play the schoolyard bullies by saying “It is our way or no way. We are bigger than you. We have 156 members and you do not have that many so we are just going to march forward and you poor guys, you are worthless, you are useless”. That is what the government is saying and it is absolutely untenable.

I am here to represent the people of Elk Island but I am also here to represent Canadians from coast to coast. I am here to make decisions that are good for Canada in the long run, not just for tomorrow. I am here for more than just making sure that members of parliament can start their vacation two and a half weeks before it was scheduled to start because the lazy bums over there do not want to do their work. That is not acceptable.