SoVote

Dave Epp

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Conservative

Chatham-Kent—Leamington
Ontario
Voting Attendance: 65%
Expenses Last Quarter: $153,134.70

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22

Nov/18/22 10:11:15 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, the member points to a series of behaviours that occur in so many other issues. There is talk. There are promises. There are announcements. So often there is not follow-through. I can think of another announcement in the spring budget, the funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which is seemingly not being honoured. There is a whole host of things that are talked about where there is not the follow-through by the government for real results for Canadians, particularly now given the cost-of-living increases that Canadians are seeing and the 1.5 million trips to the food bank. The government is not taking the opportunities it has to lower real costs for Canadians.

120 words

All Topics

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 - 58 - Apr/26/22

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

Apr/26/22 10:32:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, early in my colleague's comments he referenced the robust economy that Canada was experiencing just prior to the pandemic, and later on he referenced that the budget was getting the debt and the deficit under control. I am wondering if he could comment on the wisdom of having the government add $112 billion to this country's debt prepandemic, and then how this budget gets our present debt under control, in the context of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's comments saying that stimulus funding was not required and the budget does not account for all of the other measures that have been promised but do not appear in the budget.

113 words

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Dave Epp