Roger Gallaway

[National Unity, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of years, even before Confederation, Canada has been a nation characterized by cultural diversity.

Our First Nations were joined by many newcomers who arrived from every nation on earth. Countless waves of pioneers and adventurers became united in an untiring effort to build a new land, proud to call itself home to the languages, arts, religions and traditions of the world.

These ancestors have left us a cultural heritage and diversity envied and respected throughout the global community.

When all Canadians grasp the gifts at hand that forge a bright future for our country, we will enter the third millennium as a cohesive, respectful nation, second to none.

[Privilege, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for unanimous consent to have a private members' hour today from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

[Privilege, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on a question of privilege concerning the cancellation of private members' hour today.

I learned yesterday afternoon that the member for Vancouver North, whose motion appeared at position number one for today, had notified the office of Private Members' Business that he would not be appearing. I spoke with the hon. member this morning and in fact he had notified that office at the opening hour, 9 a.m. yesterday morning.

Prior to that I had a bill put on the order of precedence, as published yesterday in the Order Paper at No. 28. It was submitted to the private members' office at 5.55 p.m. Wednesday evening. I advised the clerk that if a substitution was to be made that I was looking for one. The next morning at 9 a.m. the clerk was advised.

Standing Order 94(1) states that "the Speaker shall make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business, including ensuring that all members have not less than 24 hours' notice of items to be considered during private members' hour".

As of yesterday morning at 9 a.m., notice had been given. In fact on the evening prior, at approximately 5.55 p.m., notice had been given of a bill on the Order Paper that was published yesterday. At no time did I receive from that office an opportunity to be substituted or to be placed on the Order Paper for today. I appreciate that the rules also say that a member will give 48 hours' written notice.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is one test. However, there are other tests. Certainly the office had more than 24 hours to contact other people and to ensure that the orderly conduct of private member's hour would continue.

Although 48 hours is one point, 24 hours is another point. Somewhere in that 24 hour interval there was opportunity. The office did know I was looking for a substitution. Had I been offered that place, it would have meant the rules requiring that 24 hours' notice be given and would have been published yesterday at 6 p.m.

I would suggest that as a result of this that my rights and my privileges have been usurped. In fact it is within your authority, Mr. Speaker, to do one of two things. Either to cancel the continuation of government business at 1.30 p.m. today, or to add a private member's hour following that one hour that has been apparently removed at this point.

I should point out that the bill to which I am referring has passed through the House, has passed through the Senate and only needs to come back on the Order Paper here. Notwithstanding the fact that the 48 hour notice has not been complied with in the sense of Standing Order 94(2)(a), that the orderly conduct of business could have continued. The 24 hour notice provision would have been complied with.

The 48 hour notice is not a precedent in the sense that a member must give written notice. I am advised that often members will call from distant places and say: "By the way I am not going to be there". Someone may call on a Monday from some remote place in the world and say he or she is not going to be here and not be able to provide written notice to the clerk, who on many occasions has acted. They have I understand also acted in terms of this window of opportunity being the point between 24 and 48 hours.

It is on that basis that I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my privileges have been usurped and I ask for this extension or substitution of government business from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

[National Parole Board, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on February 20 I raised a question in the House for the first time on a subject of great value and importance to many Canadians, that is their right to use herbs and other natural products for health and/or medical reasons.

What these people are suggesting is quite simple. They are saying Health Canada in its health protection branch is being non-consultative to the extent that it ignores the freedom of choice of Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary will suggest as he did on February 20 that products which are sold must be safe and effective. He will talk about Ephedra and how some people out west had a bad reaction to it, but he will not talk about pharmaceutical drugs which each and every day put people into emergency rooms at great cost to the system because they are not safe for the intended user.

This issue is really about miracles of magic when through the wonder of the health protection branch something that grows in the garden or swims in water is no longer a food but becomes a drug, a drug that may be restricted or not accepted at all. What is a dietary supplement south of the border is a drug in Canada. What has been used for hundreds of thousands of years with positive effects is banned in Canada. What is naturally occurring and at worst innocuous is outlawed by nameless faces in the name of good medicine in Canada.

In all of this we have lost sight of the consumer. Regulatory mania and cost recovery are driving this. Health Canada is putting the onus of proof on the individual consumer. Yet who is speaking for the consumer?

It should be noted that British Columbia is investing more than $5 million to found a centre to apply alternative health products and procedures. Because of the influx of people from the Pacific Rim there is a realization that their ways, although we do not know why, are safe and beneficial. We know this to be the case because for thousands of years their methods have in fact worked. Yet the health protection branch says: "This is all news to us. Prove it".

I am suggesting that consumer rights are greater than bureaucratic rights. I am suggesting that bureaucrats should accede to the right of Canadians to access natural products they believe to be of benefit to them.

I am urging the minister to speak for Canadian consumers and not for business interests, rule makers and multinational corporations.

On a parallel point, last Saturday the Globe and Mail carried an article on the apparent power of prayer to improve the condition of the sick. Why this treatment works on a scientific basis, who really knows. Perhaps I could suggest the health protection branch should investigate and regulate this too.

I realize this is really stretching the comparison. Yet why regulate daffodil bulbs, oil from parsley and lily of the valley, all of which grow in my garden? If I believe that consuming these will in a natural way correct a medical problem I might have, what does it matter to the health protection branch if perhaps like prayer they can in fact have a beneficial effect on my particular case?

I have a prescription for Health Canada. Perhaps a dose of sense and sensibility before those two things are regulated would persuade the minister to rethink his department's position.

What is effective such as daffodil bulbs and prayers may not always be scientifically quantifiable.

[National Parole Board, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to proceed immediately to consider the motion respecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-216 and to adopt it without further debate or amendments.

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by approximately 1,600 residents of my riding which calls on the federal government through the health protection branch to stop regulating herbal products as if they were drugs and to clearly recognized them as food.

In brief, the petitioners want the consumer to have choice and not give that discretion to the bureaucracy. I fully concur with their concerns.

[House Of Commons, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, recently members of the American Congress from both Democratic and Republican ranks spent a weekend together, the objective being how to do their political business and be civil to each other at the same time.

I am not advocating a weekend getaway but there are two important points in all of this. First, other legislative bodies are aware of behavioural problems and, second, they are attempting to do something about it.

Canadians do not want near fist fights or porcine comparisons in the House. They want debate and ideas presented in an atmosphere of civility.

Before Barnum and Bailey take possession of this place, we of whatever political stripe should stop, look and listen, just like those much younger than us, before we engage in classroom antics.

[Standing Orders Of The House, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, this is the hour allotted in the House to put away party politics and talk about, debate and discuss specific pieces of legislation proposed by members not as an extension of a party platform or part of a campaign promise but as a specific initiative directed at a perceived problem. That is why I am speaking today in support of the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 267 proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

The amendment to the amendment to the motion is entirely consistent with Recommendation No. 4 made by the subcommittee on Private Members' Business, namely that the present Standing Order 97 be changed to require the committee to which a private member's bill has been referred to report it back, with or without amendments, within 60 days, or with a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill, or to request additional time. Failing any of those, if it is not reported within the 60 days it is deemed to have been reported without amendment. In my opinion this is a proper recommendation and certainly an amendment worth supporting in this place.

We all know that to be referred to a committee a private member's bill must first receive approval by vote in the House. I

will not get into what precedes that, but it certainly must be voted upon and approved by the House.

Private members' bills are by their very nature smaller in size, narrower in scope and generally targeted toward one issue or what is regarded as a deficiency in the present law. It is the government which tables much broader comprehensive bills, the big ticket laws that define policy perspectives or the direction of the government. These large comprehensive bills can require considerable time in a committee in terms of hearing from witnesses, the department, experts and the minister. Often it is a very lengthy process followed by a clause by clause review and the amendment process. It can certainly be time consuming. In any event it is in the government's interest to pursue its legislative agenda, get a bill out of committee and get it back into the House for third reading.

With respect to a private member's bill a member has no one to push or pull it through a committee other than the collectivity of the House, and that by itself is not enough in a committee room.

By tradition committees give priority to government bills. As we know from the history of this Parliament on occasion they give no consideration whatsoever to private members' bills. Or, as we know by the history of this Parliament, they fail to report it back to this place after they have considered it.

Certainly there are any number of combinations that may occur in a committee hearing whereby a bill may be reported back as is, untouched, or may be reported back amended. It may be deemed not to be a good bill and in one sense not approved by the committee. Yet when it is not approved by the committee it is not returned to this place because the rules at the moment appear to say that if a committee kills a bill that is the end of it.

It is rather strange that a committee of 8, 10 or 12 people can, when it chooses to do so or for whatever reason, never deal with a bill. Or, if they choose to kill it or not to approve of it, they have authority and power greater than that vested in the collectivity known as the House of Commons. That is perverse and is wrong.

That is what Motion No. 267 as amended will stop. If we have any respect at all for the House, for our elected office in the House and for the work of sponsoring members who have done the work of getting a bill passed at second reading, that is no way to behave.

With this subamendment the committee will not be constrained but will be directed to do its job. There will be those in committee who will say their committee is very busy and they cannot get around to it. The subamendment says if they cannot get around to it for whatever reason they should explain that to the collective wisdom of the House which may in fact extend the time.

At the present time there are committees, sometimes properly and sometimes perhaps one could say improperly, that do not want to impose upon themselves the workload of dealing with Private Members' Business.

In those cases where a committee refuses, is unable or for whatever reason refuses to deal with a bill, the committee is saying to the House that it is not interested, that it is very busy and it chooses not to deal with it. That is an insult to the House, an insult to the member and an insult to the office of member of Parliament.

We are looking at this subamendment as empowering, which is probably a very overworked word, the average member of Parliament. We are saying that they were not elected to come here and simply speak in favour of their party principles. There is a time in this place to lay aside all of that. There is a time in this place when elected officials of the people can be legislators, make a difference, propose a law and attempt to sell the message of that law to the others in this place. When the majority in this place agree, a law can be passed. In reality that is probably about as great as my chance of winning the lottery tonight because there are a lot of forces converging against it.

I understand in every case the majority will not agree with the message contained within a bill. At the same time we have an opportunity to do something about it.

There is one final remark I want to make on this subject. Sadly it does not matter how many private members' bills we push out the door here and down the hallway into the other place. We also have to start talking to the people in the other place about how they regard the role of members of Parliament and how they regard this place.

I want to relate to the House the fact that I was just at a committee hearing in the other place considering a private member's bill which happens to be mine. The chair of the committee said that backbench MPs should not get involved in legislation.

I sent him a note which said that I appreciated the high regard in which he held members of Parliament. Notwithstanding this subamendment which I am totally and unequivocally supporting, all of the change made in this place becomes meaningless with this anchor called the other place down the hall.

I will certainly be here tomorrow to support the motion. I congratulate the sponsor of the motion and the mover of the subamendment.

[Hockey, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit we saw the first of a new college hockey tradition. The World University Hockey Championship pitted U.S. born players against Canadian college players. The final result: Team Canada defeated Team U.S.A.

Media on both sides of the border proclaimed that it was a better game than the NHL contest the night before. Canadians who could not attend the game were thrilled by the television coverage of TSN.

We as Canadians congratulate the NCAA in the U.S. and the CIAU in Canada, the governing bodies of university sport in North America; the Toronto based CAP and Gown Productions; the many corporate sponsors; as well as mayors Mike Hurst of Windsor and Dennis Archer of Detroit.

It is hoped that next year it becomes a two-game event with a contest in Toronto as well as Detroit and that in two years time university and colleges from Europe and Asia will make it a truly world class promotion.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the intent of the bill and to congratulate the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans for putting it before the House.

There is no question that the fastest growing industry in North America today is the gaming industry. It is time that we in this place started to examine in a serious fashion what that can mean in terms of the economy of the ports on the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence. It is also time for us to examine how we can utilize more efficiently the seaway system, the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. It is time for us to tap the potential we are seeing tapped in the southern U.S. and on the west coast of the United States and Canada.

There is a little town called Skagway in Alaska which has a population of 712. It is the northern terminal of west coast cruise ship run. Skagway, Alaska, imposed a 4 per cent municipal sales tax on all goods and services and last year collected something like $42 million, which represented 4 per cent of all the money spent by people coming off cruise ships. There is no other way to get there.

The seaway is underutilized in many respects. We know what is the fastest growing industry and that corporations operating cruise ships in the southern U.S. in the winter would love to put some boats on the Great Lakes in the summer.

This is an opportunity, as one member has pointed out, to employ people. Estimates I have seen from operators indicate that four ships with a capacity of 600 to 700 operating on the Great Lakes would create 10,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec in the operating season. It is a very short season but some 80 million Americans within a day's drive would love to have the opportunity to cruise the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.

This is a serious piece of legislation. The Americans are about to amend their territorial waters act. The Americans are willing to

deal with respect to the Johnson act in terms of cross-border cruise ships. The Great Lakes come under federal jurisdiction. This is the time to move to create an industry that will create jobs and will spin off into great implications for tourism.

As was mentioned, a former Prime Minister gave a great deal away but we still retain jurisdiction over the waters.