SoVote

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/9/22 10:39:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, it has come up in several debates this evening that there would be exemptions for the sport shooting community. We have heard the term “expert sport shooters”. One becomes an expert by practising. Will the exemptions be carved out for those who are attempting to represent Canada on the international stage in that community, or is this bill a means to an end?

67 words

Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/9/22 11:39:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, in comments earlier, the hon. member across the way made it clear in her comments that the desire is to remove guns from our streets and have fewer guns in circulation. There are parts of Bill C-21 I agree with and my caucus agrees with, and we made the good-faith offer to split this bill, address those areas, get them through committee and get them enacted into law. Why did the government reject that offer?

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/10/22

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/10/22 12:10:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, even if it is about 10 minutes after midnight. I also appreciate the opportunity to follow up on the question I posed on April 1, with respect to Canada's obligations under the 1956 Great Lakes treaty with the United States. My understanding specifically on the funding shortfall is that Canada had not paid its share of that treaty for seven years. I recognize that in the interim, the budget, when it was finally tabled, did include an additional $9 million to cover this obligation, but members must excuse me if that does not give me the full comfort that this issue is now addressed. As I understand it, in 2017, the government made a similar commitment in a budget. A budget is just that, a budget. After the allocation was made to the DFO in the budget, DFO's internal priorities seemingly allocated these funds to other DFO interests rather than to their intended budgeted use. That dynamic now leads me right into my second reason of concern, which is that the governance or the fiduciary responsibility of the commission is not operating correctly in Canada. This function needs to be returned to Global Affairs from the DFO, so that it mirrors how the accountabilities work in the United States. Because this is a treaty and not a program, this would remove the conflict of interest that the DFO finds itself in, in that it is presently in both a fiduciary and an operational role with respect to the affairs of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It is too bad that the word “fishery” appears in the name of the commission even though the commission really does not have any fisheries management jurisdictional responsibility, nor is the organization's mandate confined to fish. At its core, the commission is an independent body charged with fostering and maintaining cross-border collaboration and carrying out programs specific to the treaty rather than to any one federal or provincial agency, state department or U.S. agency. The commission was established in 1955 to address exactly the inability of any state, province or federal agency to address complex Great Lakes management issues in the absence of a neutral coordinator, so having the DFO as both a fiduciary and a contractor for some of the programming puts the department in a very clear conflict of interest. Lastly, the U.S. has voiced concerns that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission board has not been operating at its full strength, specifically its Canadian directors. In August 2020, the DFO declared the two Ontario seats on the commission to be vacant. Since then, the postings have gone unfilled. Moreover, because of an innate conflict of interest between his departmental responsibilities and his GLFC duties, one commissioner is unable to participate fully in commission affairs. Together, these factors mean that the Canadian section has been operating with only one fully engaged commissioner for 18 months and Ontario remains voiceless. While all of these members are striving to be diligent and effective, this situation is simply untenable. The sooner a full slate of commissioners are appointed, the better everyone will be. Moreover, the two vacant positions are traditionally nominees from Ontario. The reason for that is obviously that Ontario has such a large interest in the Great Lakes fishing industry. Ontario made its nominations in November 2020, and the nominees have cleared all of the necessary background checks. At this point in the process, there would be no purpose in further delaying their appointment, because they would not be influenced, or there would be no effect, by any fiduciary change made in the governance of the commission. When can we expect these changes to be implemented? When can we expect these appointments to be made, and when will the funding flow to meet our obligations?

659 words

Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/10/22

Mr. Dave Epp

Jun/10/22 12:18:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, about 17 minutes ago, I entered my seventh decade of life. I turned 60 about 17 minutes ago, so I am going to ask the Government of Canada, through the parliamentary secretary, to consider giving me a 60th birthday gift, which is an answer to the questions I just asked. Why, as the industry has called for, can the fiduciary responsibility not be transferred over to Global Affairs? When will that happen? Also, when will the committed $9 million in funds flow? Just as important is the governance structure that our American counterparts are asking for. When will the commissioners, which Ontario put forward 18 months ago, be named to the commission?

114 words