Roger Gallaway

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on October 29, I raised the question where do we sit as government with respect to a bill passed in the last Parliament known as the MMT bill, Bill C-29 or Bill C-94.

Members and people watching should know that this legislation came forward in the last Parliament for various stated reasons. The first time it came in, the government said it wanted to have a uniform blend of gasoline. To do that it had to remove MMT from Canadian gasoline because it did not exist in the United States. But the government knew or ought to have known that the American Environmental Protection Agency was about to license it and indeed it did.

Instead of pulling the bill at the time, the government proceeded to change its rationale. Instead of saying it was for a uniform blend of gasoline, it said it wanted to examine this as a public safety matter. But this was not case. It was not a health matter because Health Canada at that time was issuing statements saying there were no known health risks with MMT. It could not find any risks and would give a published statement to that effect.

The government on one hand was saying that public safety was the reason, and that is a very laudable and noble objective. But if I were to follow the rationale of the environment department, then I am sure there are a lot of other products we could outlaw, such as bacon or donuts, because they too are allegedly bad for your health.

In the end the bill passed the Commons. It forbids the importation of MMT. It is interesting to note that the environment department proposed a bill that is a trade bill. It is a bill that bans the importation of a product. The manufacturer of that product, Ethyl Corporation, now has the Government of Canada before a NAFTA trade tribunal.

What is the outcome likely to be? There are two possible outcomes. How is it going to affect Canadians? The answers are clear. If we loose this challenge under the NAFTA, we are going to pay $201 million U.S. or we are going to have to revoke the law. Second, if we win the NAFTA trade challenge, Canadians are going to pay more for gasoline at the pumps.

I ask members here, in particular the parliamentary secretary, and those watching, who is going to pay? Canadians can pay at the gas pumps or Canadians can pay through their taxes.

I would ask that the next time parliamentarians want to talk about the price of gasoline they tell Canadians that, with respect to the increase in the price of gasoline, they contributed to the problem. I think this is the least that those who supported this bill can do for Canadians.

[Veterans Affairs, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

This morning in this building the Merchant Navy Coalition showed how for 52 years its members have been denied housing, have been denied education and service benefits given to other veterans.

Is the minister prepared to give all wartime merchant marine veterans the same benefits as other veterans?

[Trade, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, because of the large number of departments involved, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Following the passage of Bill C-29 last spring, the MMT bill, Ethyl Corporation launched a NAFTA trade challenge. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what is the status of this case?

[Privilege, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It came to my attention yesterday afternoon that the office and position of legislative counsel has in a de facto manner ceased to exist. I would suggest that this in and of itself is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

I need not remind members of the House that a breach of privilege occurs according to all the precedents when there is some improper obstruction to the member in performing his parliamentary work. The facts are that in 1993 there were seven legislative counsel and today there are approximately two point something legislative counsel. This is the improper obstruction.

I have three questions to ask. How can a member of any of the 18 standing committees be reasonably expected to have access to independent legal advice concerning the probable effect of specific sections of bills before a committee when no legal counsel is available? How can a member draft amendments to legislation when there is a six month wait for the same two point something people to draft private members' bills? How can a member who is sent here as a legislator fulfil that role without reasonable access and availability of legal counsel? In brief, to do the job, each member requires the tools.

The Privy Council in the case of Kielley v. Carson in 1842 when ruling on a question of privilege noted that members of the legislative body enjoy these privileges because the legislature cannot act or perform without the unimpeded use of the services of its members.

Yet members are in fact being impeded in performing their parliamentary work. Indeed I as a member have no reasonable access to the services of the legislative counsel's office. As a member of this House I have been disempowered in carrying out my duties.

As the guardian of the rights and privileges of this place, I implore you to give me along with others in this place the right to do our work. I am suggesting to you that this is not a matter for the Board of Internal Economy. That body functions in a realm that is defined by statute.

What I am asking of you is to uphold my rights as a member of this House and not my interests as a member of a particular political party which we know is reflected in the composition of the Board of Internal Economy. When the Board of Internal Economy meets, its members present the positions of their parties and members but do not speak or represent each and every member of the House. Only you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of privileges can act in such a manner.

I am not asking for another business process review of the House staff and functions, nor do I believe that I should be forced to resort to individuals who have been subjected to four hours of training and are now called legislative clerks.

Finally, I am aware suggestions abound that the British Parliament uses legislative clerks to fulfil the function of legislative counsel and by extension the same could apply here. I would suggest that this kind of logic ignores 130 years of the evolution of this House to the point that we are unique and not a twin or clone of Westminster.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case of privilege exists and with your permission I would like to move the motion:

That the lack of legislative counsel to assist members in fulfilling their duties is a prima facie case of privilege and this matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, again I must remind members opposite of Standing Order 11(2) and that we are debating the amendment as proposed by the opposition and the amendment as put forward by the Senate, neither of which has anything to do with jurisdiction.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like you to consider Standing Order 11, specifically section (2).

We are hearing debates being brought forward from when this was before the House at third reading, such as references to letters written on June 30, 1996. I would like to remind members that we are not debating jurisdictional items, which have already been debated, but are in fact debating the amendment as proposed by the Senate and the amendment as proposed by the opposition party.

He is referring to-

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events or an interesting development when we consider that we are hearing from members of the group who talk about democracy in Canada and their respect for democracy.

They have now proposed an amendment that would send the bill back. They reject it. They purport, allege and suggest they are speaking for francophones both inside and outside the province of Quebec. They are failing to tell Canadians who are watching and Canadians in the gallery today that the federation of francophones outside Quebec endorse the bill. They are failing to tell Canadians that cable company distributors in Quebec endorse the bill. They are purporting to protect Canadians when in fact they are not.

They are telling the people in Quebec that they must accept channels they do not want. They are telling the seniors in Quebec they must accept the cartoon channel and the MuchMusic channel, notwithstanding the amendment made by the Senate that was sensitive to the needs of Quebec and notwithstanding that the amendment was put forth by interest groups from Quebec. That is not enough for the members opposite. They want more. They have not had enough.

In the end they are trying to frustrate the rules of this place by killing a bill. They do not want it to go to a vote. They would rather talk it out and allow it to die here.

Notwithstanding the fact that we sometimes say in this place that the opposition speaks for all Canadians, they are taking a very narrow and might I suggest a very selfish view of the issue.

On this topic they are saying they will only speak for people inside the province of Quebec and to heck with all those people outside the province of Quebec. In effect they are saying to heck with all other people inside the province of Quebec. The Bloc says it knows what is best for them. They are saying they will reject it and will send it back to the Senate. They have no interest in consumers. They have no interest in seniors. They have no interest in families. They have no interest in the people who are living on very limited incomes.

Notwithstanding that the witnesses who appeared before the heritage committee and the witnesses who appeared before the committee of the other place do not agree with them, they are saying they know more than they do.

Under the circumstances I suggest they do not know more. They are capitulating to a couple of very special interest groups. They will argue about technical capabilities. They will argue about the single tier in Quebec. They will make all sorts of weird, wondrous and spurious arguments.

They are not willing to protect consumers, whether the consumers are in the province of Quebec or in British Columbia or Nova Scotia. They are willing to hang them out to dry. They have a very unique interpretation of the law which, by the way, does not coincide with what was said by any of the witnesses. It flies in the face of all the evidence. It flies in the face of everything said before both committees. Yet the Bloc happens to know more.

On that basis, I urge members to reject the Bloc amendment. Let us get on with the vote.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been debated in the House and studied by the heritage committee. It has been debated in the other place and studied by its committee. If members of the opposition really believe in democracy they are going to allow it to go to a vote. If they care to represent interests greater than Quebec, they will allow it to go to a vote. If they care about seniors, families and people who are struggling to get by they will let it go to a vote.

I would like to suggest that the time has come to end this debate now and let us get it to a vote.

[Broadcast Act, April 22nd, 1997]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Broadcast Act (broadcast policy).

[Parliament Of Canada Act, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree this is a topic worth discussing. The member opposite who proposed the bill should be congratulated.

I listened to the level of the debate. Some members are railing at a shadow they do not appreciate, known as the House of Commons. They are not looking at its historical perspective in the sense that parliament is an old institution that has evolved with time. Change is necessary and change occurs in parliament, but change does not always happen in the way or at the speed we want. In the thousand years parliament has existed change has in fact occurred.

I do not necessarily disagree with having a fixed date for elections. It is done in the United States-