Ken Epp

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I need some clarification. Is the member rising on questions and comments or is he making a speech? The person to whom he should be directing his questions and comments has gone.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in Canada's House of Commons once again to discuss an important issue.

I have been quite interested in lobbyists and this type of legislation for quite a while, basically ever since I came here when one of my first jobs was to work on the same committee that the previous member just mentioned. I, too, find it curious that the chair of that committee subsequently himself became a lobbyist.

First, I would like to say a few things about the actual motion that is before the House today. Most of the speakers today have talked about the bill itself but the motion is, as I understand it, to refer the bill to a committee prior to second reading. I would like to make a few comments about that because I am not as enamoured with that process as are some people.

I think that came about as a response by the Liberals when they first became government, having dealt with it under the Conservative regime, where over and over they experienced the Conservative government sort of jamming legislation through. They seemed not to have enough influence on it because if a government tables legislation from then on it just seems to be sort of lockstep, everybody salute on command, the legislation then goes in and amendments from opposition parties generally are not accepted.

When the Liberals took power, to their credit, they said that they wanted to do something about that and they thought, and I believe those members who supported it thought correctly, that if a committee could be involved in a bill prior to its final etching in stone, so to speak, there would be more ready openness to actually shaping the bill according to the wishes of the legislators.

I would like to comment briefly on that process because I have been very disappointed in it. I have found that the process has actually reduced the amount of debate and reduced the amount of influence. We find that instead of debating in this House on the principle of the bill, we end up going in and dealing with the details right away. Because of the fact that the committee structure in a Parliament that has a majority, as this one does, is dominated by the majority of the government members, those government members are either ignored or whipped into action.

In the end it makes no difference because what the minister and his minions come up with as legislation is jammed into existence anyway. Even if the committee comes here with other proposals, the government will make amendments. It has done this. We all know the examples where it has actually gone to work and introduced amendments that would undo every act of a committee in studying a bill.

I was part of the finance committee in the ill-shamed event where a member actually was persuaded by good logical arguments to favour an amendment that we were proposing. That member, before the amendment came to a vote, was replaced on committee by the government whip. Unless we are going to actually open up committees to truly be free, I think this process of referring a bill, whether it is before second reading or after second reading, really does not make that much difference.

Way back, before I was a member of Parliament, I used to think that lobbyists should be outlawed. I wanted to know who needed them. The impression I had of lobbyists prior to my life as a parliamentarian was that their only function was to unduly influence parliamentarians in passing laws or giving contracts that should be done by a better process. To a degree, I am still of that opinion in certain areas of lobbying.

I do not know if anyone within the sound of my voice today read the article I wrote, as a special article to The Hill Times , more than a year go about the role of lobbyists in Parliament. I said that there really are two kinds of lobbyists. One kind is very healthy for us. As an MP, I would much rather deal with one representative, for example of the forest association, than 2,000 individual practitioners in the forestry industry.

It is good for these different organizations, like the chambers of commerce, the taxpayers federation, the citizens' coalitions, the industrial coalitions such as the Chemical Producers' Association and others, to hammer the issues which are most important to them at a convention or in their own meetings instead of 2,000 organizations bringing us 100 different issues. It is good for them to get together, take these 100 issues and bring them down to the six that are of the greatest priority. Having then honed them down, their representatives can present them to us as members of Parliament. It increases its forcefulness and impact, and as a result of that, Canada can become a better place because we can respond to the most important issues that these different organizations bring to us.

To a degree, I also agree that it is important when it comes to other parts of legislation. For example, in some of the social issues, instead of dealing with many organizations, we would deal with that group which represents all of them.

That is the positive aspect to it. However there is a very negative aspect to it as well. When they go beyond just simply providing information and start putting some great pressure on parliamentarians, particularly when they put those pressures on members of cabinet, their deputies and other people in the bureaucracy who can influence these decisions so greatly.

I also feel there is a reverse lobbying that has come into play under this government, which I have found rather bizarre; issues like the Prime Minister phoning the president of the Business Development Bank. This is reverse lobbying where the Prime Minister uses the influence of his power to try to overcome the issue of making decisions in a pseudo-government agency. That type of thing should also somehow be regulated or exposed and ceased.

Decisions should be made, as much as possible, on objective criteria. If those criteria are met, the decision will go one way. If the criteria are not met, it should go a different way. It should not matter who has lobbied on behalf of the individual; it should matter what the facts are. I would like to see lobbying controlled in that area as well.

I have real concerns with the ethics package of the current government. It seems to be focusing on individual members of Parliament. I know of no cases that have come to the attention of Canadians as being an untoward issue from ordinary MPs. There have been many from those who have the real power. It seems to me that the package is not properly addressing the real issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation. We will of course be adding as much influence as we can in committee. I simply would appeal to the government, to the people who make the final decision, to please listen to what the committee discovers by listening to witnesses and giving reasoned thought to the whole bill so that Bill C-15 will become an act which truly and properly will serve the well-being of the people of Canada.

[Petitions, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I add 73 more names to the petitions of people in my riding, from Sherwood Park in the south all the way to Newbrook in the north. Many people are saying that we need to stop child pornography. The issue of the petitioners is that they deplore the inaction of the government in addressing this problem in a meaningful way to actually stop it. That is what the petition is about and I am very honoured to present it on behalf of the petitioners.

[Ethics, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain this. Perhaps the member could think of the days when he was in opposition. He would probably remember the anxiety that he felt from time to time when overwhelmed by a government majority. This choice will be made by a government majority and not give a true influence to opposition parties on a person who can rule on their behalf.

The last thing we need is an ethics commissioner who is a damage control officer for the Liberals and attacks people in opposition. Will they commit to allowing some true representation on this from opposition parties?

[Ethics, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated that Standing Order 111 provides for the election by the House of Commons of the ethics commissioner. In fact it does not. It allows instead for the intended person's appointment to be referred to committee. After 30 days the proposed appointment would be put under routine proceedings. That is then decided on without debate or amendment.

There is no true election and no true influence by opposition parties on the outcome. Will the government commit to true, all party participation in the election of an ethics commissioner?

[Ethics, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation says that the commissioner will be appointed by order in council. That is the Prime Minister. Any votes in committees are non-binding, and the votes there as in the House are controlled by the Liberal majority. All members of Parliament should have a real say in the selection of the commissioner.

Will the government commit to an all party selection of the ethics commissioner?

[Ethics, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated that there would be an independent ethics commissioner, yet he was ambiguous on the method of the commissioner's appointment. The proposed legislation does not provide for any direct involvement by the House in selecting the appointee.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the proposed legislation precludes the direct election of the ethics commissioner by members of Parliament?

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In defence of Private Members' Business, I would then ask for you to have this member make his presentation again because we did in fact miss it.

[Canada Labour Code, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the presentation from the Bloc member the microphone was not on and we did not get interpretation. It also means it will probably not be in the official Hansard . I wonder whether there could be consent that the member's statement, as written on his paper, could appear in Hansard as if it had actually been spoken in the House.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, they are picking on me because I pointed out a serious flaw in the bill. The member said that I should not be concerned about search and seizure. I am concerned about it. There is no compensation. She said that if it is not covered here, it is covered by the Criminal Code. Well the Criminal Code is wrong too.

I know a young man, a fine, clean shaven guy who showed up at the border in a nice car. He is a hard worker and earns money. At the border his car was ripped apart. The dash was wrecked, the door panels were taken off, and the trunk was ripped apart. There was a whole bunch of damage. He did not receive compensation. He is totally innocent. He does not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol and it was thought he was carrying contraband. It was a false accusation and he is entitled to compensation.

Those people over there just do not get it.