House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Government Contracts October 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, $100 million is a big contract to most taxpayers. The government usually seeks approval for purchases of this kind. The deputy minister said “no” to fat cat jets. The Clerk of the Privy Council said “no” to fat cat jets.
I would like to know why this minister continues to stand up to try and justify when his own bureaucrats said “no” to fat cat jets.
Government Contracts October 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the new fat cat cabinet jets cost $100 million. Yesterday, the public works minister said that it was just a minor contract to explain why this was not tendered.
The rules call for a competitive tender for a major purchase. Was the fat cat cabinet jet contract a major purchase that should have been tendered?
Government Contracts October 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, so to the minister of public works $100 million is just a tiny issue. Here is the issue.
The minister, who was not there at the time, says it was not his problem; however, his assistant deputy minister, a Queen's counsel lawyer, said this deal would be very difficult to justify in court.
My question is to the minister. Is this the sort of deal that he today approves of, yes or no?
Government Contracts October 21st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister tried to justify the purchase of Challenger jets for the cabinet by saying, “We wanted to have Canadian planes”.
So what did he do? He tendered a contract without any competitive bidding. The rules say there should be competitive bidding.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Is this a major purchase?
Auditor General's Report October 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it has been leaked so that every journalist in the country knows what is in it.
The executive jets for Liberal cabinet ministers are new and flying 99% of the time. Sea Kings are old and spend much too much time on the ground for repairs. My question stands. Why are the priorities of the next Liberal leader so mixed up that he would sign off on this flawed process when the priority was so low?
Auditor General's Report October 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is an independent watchdog of government spending. Here is what she found out about the $100 million purchase of luxury jets for the cabinet. First off, the jets were not needed; second, the money was spent suspiciously right at year end; and finally, there was no tendering of the contract.
Why did the former finance minister sign the cheques for this deal when it was so flawed and the priority so low?
Food and Drugs Act October 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk on Bill C-420 for a moment and explain my involvement on the issue. I should have a disclaimer, and the disclaimer is as follows: I am not a user of natural health products. I have never, ever taken any of these natural health products, so I would like to say that I am a little bit like the Auditor General in that I am independent of the industry and of those individuals who manufacture and produce these products.
I am also, as a medical doctor, a guy who has had the choice or opportunity of listening to my patients talk about the use of these products. I formed an opinion, consequently, about the use of these products because of my association as a practising GP. I found that a lot of my patients were using these products and had good success with them. In fact, they were somewhat reticent to tell me until they found that I was not negative about their use.
When I queried them, I would often ask them if they were taking any prescription drugs and also if they were taking anything natural. Many of them told me that they were taking the products to boost their immune systems. They felt better and they thought that it prevented them from coming to see me; there was no negative intended, they said, “But we would rather not come to see you at all, Doc”. I think that is the appropriate way to handle medical issues: with preventive measures, to try to stay away from practising physicians.
I came here in 1993 and was surprised to find that there seemed to be, at the bureaucracy level in Ottawa, a real roadblock to the use of these products. I will use an example of two products that I myself found to have roadblocks that I could not explain, either scientifically or just in terms of the regular administrative process.
The first is melatonin, a natural hormone that our body produces from the pituitary. Through scientific research, we have found that melatonin is useful for sleep. People take melatonin for jet lag and for the regular things like insomnia. I had never taken melatonin myself but I knew people who had, so I thought I would ask them if it had any side effects, or whether it made them feel dozy the next day, and the answer was no.
Suddenly that product was taken from the Canadian health food shelves. I went to the regulators and asked if they had found some harm, some side effects or some contamination. The answer was no, so I asked why they took it off the market and, interestingly enough, why did they allow it if a person went to the U.S. and brought it back for personal importation? In my view, there was no satisfactory answer.
The second product was a sweetener called stevia, a natural, plant-based sweetener. It is very sweet. I had an opportunity to taste this stuff, to take a little bit on my finger; it is profoundly sweet. A tiny drop of this in tea, coffee or juice sweetens things up. It is natural. It is from a plant source. Stevia was taken off the market. I did the same thing for this product and asked why it had been taken off the market. I asked if side effects, contamination or harm had been found. There was no satisfactory answer.
Based on that experience, I believe there was some kind of bureaucratic reason to remove those products from Canadian shelves. They were taken off the health food shelves. They had been available to the public and people could get them from the U.S. through personal importation. None of this made sense to me.
I was on the health committee in those days and had an opportunity to go through the hearing process that the House of Commons went through after the 1997 election. During that election it was fascinating, because people who had used a product that was taken off the shelves asked the same questions that I had. They asked if there was a reason to take the items away from them. They did not get a satisfactory answer, and they actively went out and campaigned for freedom in natural health products.
That was a factor in many ridings across the country in the 1997 election. People in my own riding wanted to know my position. I said I was in favour of the most freedom on these products. They said that was good and they would vote for me. I know there were ridings throughout the country where it was actually a factor in the election.
Subsequently, with the health minister aware of that, we went through hearings on the issue that were quite fascinating. We heard from native healers, Chinese healers and very diverse sections of Canadian society. The message to the government was to allow people to take these products for their own health and prevention and not to put up bureaucratic hurdles unless there were good reasons. Recommendations came from the health committee and those recommendations, I believe, were sound, secure, thoughtful recommendations.
What is happening today? This bill is on the table today because of what is happening with Health Canada today. Restrictions are being placed on products because products are making health claims.
I will use an example here, which is not an exact example, to show how absurd that is. When Health Canada bureaucrats search natural health publications they may find a product that says “Vitamin C will prevent scurvy”. That is a scientific and medical fact, but if a company takes a vitamin C product and makes the statement that it is a health claim, suddenly a phone call is made and the company is told it is fabricating a product and making a health claim and that if it continues to do that Health Canada will shut it down or fine it.
Some of these products, quite frankly, have health benefits, preventive benefits in some cases and actual benefits in other cases. That is why I will be supporting this private member's bill at vote time.
Is it perfect? I listened to the constructive comments of my colleagues across the way and down the way. I found those comments to be constructive because this surely is a non-partisan issue.
Do I have a critique to make of Health Canada on this file? I do. These bureaucrats are, in most cases, well intentioned, well meaning individuals, but when it comes to these products I do not think they understand the way they could and should understand the benefits that the products can bring.
I summarize this issue with a statement that I found to be powerful while campaigning: informed consumes are far better judges of their health care needs than any Health Canada bureaucrat in Ottawa.
Where should the bureaucrats be involved? Here is the other side of the coin. The bureaucrats should be involved when there is evidence of side effects, evidence of contamination or evidence of harm.
I challenge the bureaucrats on melatonin or on stevia. If there is new scientific evidence that melatonin has impacts on society over a period of time, surely that evidence should be brought to bear, made public, allowed scrutiny and allowed rebuttal so that if melatonin is not safe for the Canadian public it would be stricken from the market and the importation for personal use would be banned. Surely that is what the Health Canada bureaucrats would want. That is what I as a physician would want and every health practitioner in the country would want.
If there is no such new evidence, if there is no problem with packaging, labelling, side effects, contamination or harm, “Get out of our face” is my message to the Health Canada bureaucrats.
Government Contracts October 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the conflict to anybody else is pretty obvious.
The Irving Group has defence interests through Fleetway Inc. Its website states that it is well positioned to respond to the needs of government involving engineering support contracts, including national defence.
Who over there will stand up to justify this junior defence minister taking an airplane trip from a company that has defence contracts, and good luck to them?
Government Contracts October 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the junior defence minister used a private jet owned by the Irving Group of Companies on a political trip to Washington.
He is governed by conflict guidelines preventing him from receiving benefits greater than $200. An executive jet just idling to the end of the runway costs more than $200.
Why did this individual take this trip and not disclose it to the proper public authorities?
South Pole Rescue September 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, Canada's tradition of pioneer aviators has once again been highlighted by a recent aerial rescue mission to the Antarctic.
Two years ago a Canadian Twin Otter flew a daring medical rescue to the South Pole. That feat has been repeated as another rescue has just been completed this past weekend.
Some have asked: Why does a bush pilot from Calgary have to travel around the world to perform such a rescue? The reason is quite simple: because they are the best. This is due to the expertise gained by regular use of these aircraft in Canada's rugged north.
Pilots Sean Loutitt and the support teams from Kenn Borek Air are experts with no equal when it comes to cold weather flying. Sean's response when he was called a hero for his mission was also quite typical of a pioneer: “Just another day at the office”.
My comment for Sean is, nice office, nice day.