Roger Gallaway

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a really interesting philosophy going on here. They take one issue and stake their lives on it. I was elected in the riding of Sarnia-Lambton because people knew what I stood for and what I could do. People also knew what the government stood for on a whole range of issues.

Members opposite love to talk about how they have the only method known to mankind of consulting with their constituents. I will put my method of consulting with constituents against theirs any day.

In any event, let us examine the way they consulted with their constituents on gun control. Their method of consulting was to have their constituents fill out a questionnaire they received in their mailboxes and send it in to them. I am certain there were little clubs and groups who were Xeroxing these, stuffing them in envelopes and mailing them off to their local Reform member of Parliament. Of course it can be sent free, without any charge.

From the mailbag they said they learned how their constituents felt. A bunch of anonymous people had mailed in forms. It was like clipping coupons from a newspaper. This was supposed to be a very scientific process. It was the way the Reform Party discerns how their constituents feel.

Out of that came a policy they said represented the views of their constituents. Yet, three of their members dared to go into the communities and say they wanted to engage a professional polling firm. They wanted to find out exactly what the people in their ridings were saying. They did not want a bunch of anonymous people mailing in clippings and flyers. They wanted to know what the people in their ridings truly felt. They were willing to spend 2,000 or 3,000 bucks of Government of Canada money to find out the people of Canada supported Bill C-68.

They are using the same kind of logic in the most wondrous fashion to tell us that Canadians are opposed to section 745 and therefore it must be repealed. Let us have a little clipping service. Let us have a discount. Let us find out what those nameless people who are responding to the Reform polls are saying.

It is nonsense to discern or gauge public opinion that way. They do not have a stand. They are like willow trees. They blow with the prevailing wind, and the prevailing wind comes from the little coupons people clip and mail to them.

That indicates why they are sitting where they are in the polls. They are devoid of any opinion other than what is in their mailbags. It is an indication of how special interest groups seize such minds and propel what they discern to be public opinion. I do not agree.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.

To restart this debate, members opposite from the third party have called on the government to apologize to families of murder victims. One cannot appreciate nor can one understand what sort of grief and suffering the families of those who have been murdered go through.

At the same time it is a sad commentary if this debate has been raised today simply on the basis of scoring some political points if that is the only motive. There is no reason for this government to apologize. And I do not think there is any reason why the government would want to get involved in all of this to make these people, the families, political pawns.

We know from earlier debate raised by my friend from Rosedale that criminal law is not there just to punish. Punishment is part and parcel of the criminal law but it is not the sole factor. Punishment does not bring back victims. Locking up offenders is not the sole answer and there is a cost factor attached to it. We also believe that while people are incarcerated we should look at rehabilitation with a view that some of these people may be put back into society.

The law requires that those who are convicted of first degree murder must serve a minimum of 15 years. We also know that most people convicted of first degree murder serve a full life sentence. We do know that after 15 years release is only possible after a very thorough review process. This is not just a review by the Minister of Justice or by the courts. Ordinary Canadians have a say as well.

The Criminal Code requires that offenders must serve their full 25 year sentence unless a jury decides that they should be allowed to apply for parole. First they have to serve at least 15 years of their sentence. Then they must go to the jury and if and only if that jury approves can they apply to the parole board in the same way as other inmates. This is not a green light from the beginning and this is not an easy process.

We on this side of the House believe that Canadians are best served by a complete criminal justice system, not by a system that says the only factor in sentencing is punishment. The criminal law has greater width than that and the ultimate purpose of criminal law is to make Canada a safer place.

We have talked about punishment and we have heard about deterrence but we also believe that we are here to protect Canadians from violence and by preventing violence. Every murder that we can prevent means that one less family is victimized. A criminal justice system is not just about deterrence and incarceration. Everything possible must be done to prevent crimes from happening in the first place and to deal with those who commit them so they will not reoffend again.

The safety of Canadians requires that offenders be rehabilitated if possible and if it is not possible then they will not be released. The possibility of release after 15 years instead 25 years is a part of rehabilitation. It offers a reward to those who modify their behaviour. The strict review process ensures that those who do not change will serve out their sentences.

The interests of all Canadians are better served by preventing crime than simply by punishing people. That is why we have brought in legislation to prevent murder and other violent crime.

In Canada one-third of all homicides are committed with firearms. In recent years more Canadians have been killed with a gun than any other type of weapon. We listened to the families of

young women killed at the Montreal University Ecole Polytechnique in 1989 and the families of victims of firearms violence all across Canada. We believe that the families of these victims want more than anything to see that it does not happen to someone else.

That is why the government has enacted new gun control legislation. If someone is shot the whole family is victimized but Canadians are also victimized.

Unfortunately the new decorum in the House means they keep talking but we have to keep the killer in jail. It also costs about $50,000 a year which is over $1 million for every offender. If murders can be prevented from happening everyone benefits. Sadly the members opposite disagree. They voted against gun control. They would rather lock up murderers than prevent people from being killed in the first place.

I ask: who voted against measures that would allow us to identify illegal firearms so that the guns could be seized and those who import and sell them to Canadian criminals could be prosecuted? Who voted against measures that would ensure that police officers could find out whether a gun is in the house before they knock on the door? Who voted against laws that would control imports to ensure that guns that enter Canada are sold only to those who have been screened and have been issued a permit for them? Who voted against measures that would make sure that only those who owned their guns legally and had them registered could go into a store and buy ammunition for them? Where do the members opposite stand?

Earlier in debate today, members talked about accountability. Earlier today they talked about how they stand in solidarity on this issue. Yet they also talked about accountability. We also heard the talk, and it is only talk, of how they are accountable and how they go out, in this infinite wisdom of theirs, and discern how people feel.

However, members opposite know that three of their members voted for the gun legislation. They spent taxpayers' money to do a poll in their ridings. They knew all along that this was a way of preventing victims, of protecting families and of preventing murder.

Does the hon. member and his colleagues opposite, with the three exceptions who spent the money to do a poll, oppose all of these things because they think it will cost too much money? It is okay if it is out of the member's budget. They want to spend money on prisons but not on preventing crime. They are not willing to spend money on saving lives. They also oppose it because it is inconvenient for their supporters. They oppose holding gun owners responsible for gun storage requirements that would help keep guns from being stolen and keep them out of the hands of children.

Some of their supporters object to registering their firearms. They object to the idea that they should have to keep their guns locked up. They think that they should all be allowed to have assault rifles and machine guns. They think they should have the right to have any kind of gun. They would like to see everyone with a loaded gun to protect themselves from criminals. They have adopted the American principle of the right to bear arms. Those are simplistic and unrealistic policies.

The hon. member and his colleagues do not seem to be very concerned that we would also have the kind of homicide rates that would inevitably result from their policies. They would like to repeal gun laws. They say they would do it all if elected. They say they care about the families of those who were shot yesterday but they do not seem to care very much about the families of tomorrow's victims.

One-third of Canadian homicides are committed with guns. That means that one-third of the families about whom the hon. members opposite are so concerned lost their loved ones to gunshot injuries. However, they do not worry about that as long as the killer spends 25 years in jail. In that way their consciences are clear and their supporters are happy. What about the families? They are still victims. Their loved ones are still dead and their lives are still devastated.

I would suggest that the shame is on that side. They should be embarrassed for calling on the government, which is trying to prevent similar killings in the future, to apologize fully to the families of the victims. If anyone should apologize it is those on the other side of the House, not here.

[The Internet, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Internet is the system linking computers all over the world, allowing the free flow of information. Now the new chair of the CRTC, Madam Bertrand, has stated that her commission intends to regulate the Internet to ensure adequate levels of Canadian content. If information is flowing freely how and why is Madam Bertrand going to measure its Canadiana?

Rather than spend our money in such a fashion perhaps a suggestion of redirecting her cash to libraries, book publishing or literary programs would be infinitely more meaningful. Regulating the flow of information is in a historical sense an extraordinarily dangerous step. I would suggest that regulating the flow of information is in fact censorship.

As parliamentarians I suggest that we stop the CRTC's flight of fancy before it takes one further step.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 175 residents of my riding.

The petitioners call upon the government to make certain amendments to the Bank Act to give consumers greater rights and information with respect to the operation of Canadian banks.

[Health, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of groups and individuals who want to use herbs and other natural products for medical purposes. They are suggesting that Health Canada unreasonably forbids the importation of some rather innocuous health products.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Does Health Canada in fact publish statements as to why certain products are or are not allowed in and is there an appeal process when entry is denied?

[Standing Orders Of The House, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in favour of this motion, which would amend the standing orders, specifically Standing Order 97.

As I understand it, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam wishes to require that a private member's bill, if defeated in committee, be reported in the House that, first, it was defeated and, second, why it was defeated.

I listened to the amendment proposed by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. We are talking about two subjects here. As the standing orders now stand the rules allow that a bill, if defeated in the committee, the committee need not report back to the House that the bill was defeated. The chair of the committee is instructed not to report it to the House. This is, in effect, not correct.

At the same time, I have to acknowledge that this whole business of private members' business is being studied by a House committee. A process of evolution is occurring. Since 1986 when private members' business was given an earlier statutory amendment, it has evolved a great deal in the last 11 years.

The member in question for Mission-Coquitlam was the author and sponsor of Bill C-245, which was an act to amend the Divorce Act. As a member of the justice committee, yes, it was rejected by the committee. I was the person who moved that it not be reported to the House because the clerk of the committee told us that the rules only allowed that when a bill was defeated. There was no other alternative. We had no choice but to move that once the bill was defeated.

Also, this was a bill that was not whipped. There was no intervention or interference from the whip's office. It was a bill that was not discussed in the sense that, on one side of the table, we arrived at a consensus. It was a vote based on the merits of the legislation as proposed.

I would suggest that Bill C-245 was rejected for two reasons, namely, that the Divorce Act already has a provision for grandparents' access and that Bill C-245 was fundamentally flawed in that it would include custody and access rights equivalent to parents at the time of the divorce when those grandparents did not have those rights prior to the divorce writ being issued.

It seems to me that, as a parent, we would not want to give rights greater to grandparents than what they had prior to the divorce. No one would want to engage in litigation when a divorce, which becomes a rather crazy piece of litigation at best, could have added another four petitioners or respondents to that type of action.

Although the intent of the sponsor of that bill was correct and undoubtedly there is some room for amendments to the Divorce Act to accommodate that, nonetheless I voted against the bill because it was not the best piece of legislation.

The fact that the bill was never reported back to the House is the sad part of the process. I, for one, can speak from personal experience that a private member's bill is a lot of work. A lot of heart and soul is put into it. The House agreed in principle that this was an idea worth examining. The fact is that it went to a committee and the committee did study it. Then we add the ultimate insult not only to those on the committee but to the sponsor of that bill by saying we cannot under the rules report the bill to the House is a great tragedy.

In the end it was the House that referred this bill to the committee, and the committee should be given the right and the authority to refer it back to the House and to say that yes, in this particular case the bill was defeated and here are some of the reasons why it, independently or collectively, defeated a bill. Then let the House decide if it was a good and valid reason.

Obviously the committee system in this place is not intended to be the terminal point of pieces of legislation. Committees are there to examine legislation at greater length than can possibly be done in this House. They are there to summon witnesses and experts and to determine if there are flaws, shortcomings or problems that were not contemplated in the House which should be considered. They are there to consider if legislation should be fine tuned, amended or defeated.

After the committee makes its collective decision obviously the House which sent it there would like to hear what the collective or individual opinions of those members might be with regard to the meaning of legislation, apparently or unintended.

To terminate a piece of private member's legislation in a committee is wrong. It is not proper; it is not fair. We have a chance now to do that which is proper, right and fair. We can move to amend the standing orders so that in the end we give to the House, not to the committee, the right to decide whether the committee was correct or whether the committee had enough evidence or whether the committee, based on the evidence presented to it, came up with the right conclusion.

We have a lot of boards in this country. For example, in Ontario we have boards to determine whether an individual should be issued a liquor licence. If the board turns the application down, the individual can at least appeal to another body which can ask based on the evidence before that board, did it follow the rules and arrive at the right conclusion. That is what the courts are for and that is

why we have laws dealing with administration. The administration act in Ontario deals with this.

It seems strange that fundamental laws of justice that apply in the courts of this country are in some way short circuited. I do not think it is a deliberate attempt, but the ultimate consequence is that a committee can short circuit the collective judgment of this place. I do not believe that was intended but that is what is happening, which is why this motion should be adopted.

I have heard the other argument about the amendment that it should be in six months. In the justice committee we have a rule that every month private members' business will be reviewed by the committee with respect to the status of items, including when we will deal with them. I believe that is what the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata was talking about.

We must also give private members' business the courtesy it deserves. We should ensure that committees deal with it. In the justice committee it works. I was the sponsor of that motion before the committee, and the motion passed. At least private members' business does not die in the in basket. In fact, it is dealt with. Not everybody likes the results of how the committee deals with it but if we follow this motion things will at least circuit back to the House where we can let the House collectively deal with them.

This motion has great merit and I urge others to examine it and to support it.

[Standing Orders Of The House, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to speak in favour of MotionNo. 267. I understand that it is a motion which speaks to Standing Order-

[Program Cost Declaration Act, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Program Cost Declaration Act, Bill C-214.

It is said that the Canadian public is becoming cynical about the political process. I believe it was the American humorist Mark Twain who said that a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but knows the value of nothing.

What the hon. member for Durham is trying to do with this bill is to put two concepts together. If we know the price of something and we know we are getting a good buy for the price then we are quite willing to pay for it. This bill is about how to determine the price and whether value for money is being given.

I will give an example. If one was to go down to one of the luxury car lots not far from Parliament Hill, no doubt a car could be found that was worth $75,000. That is a lot of money. However, if I take the car out and test drive it, I may begin to feel that with all the bells and whistles and all the good things that are included, $75,000 is not a lot of money to pay for the vehicle. In my opinion, $75,000 is a lot of money for a car but if someone can afford it and it is good value, they will pay for it because it is not a problem.

As legislators, we often get into programs that cost money but, at the same time, are good value. I am not quite as cynical as some of the earlier speakers from the Reform who only talked about the price and did not want to talk about the value. They were only interested in the cost because it is a personal lifestyle issue to them as opposed to what it means to us as Canadians or to the country as a whole.

At the same time, as individuals, collectively we are entitled to know what the large picture cost is of this and what the individual or per capita cost is of the particular program.

As an example, a couple of years ago in the province of British Columbia, the then minister of the environment in that province wanted to introduce environmental legislation that sounded great. It was reformulated gasoline. It was a wonderful idea which would

have wonderful effects on the environment. People thought it was just what they needed and that the government should proceed with it.

However, when the people of British Columbia found out that it was going to cost them eight cents a litre more to buy reformulated gasoline, they had very severe reservations and told the minister of the environment to back off because they wanted to think about it. Once the price had been leaked to them, they started to realize that maybe under those circumstances they were not getting good value.

There is another side to this. As Canadians we know that health care costs a lot of money. Despite the fact that health care, no matter what country one lives in, has a large price tag attached to it, Canadians know that they are getting good value. If we compare ourselves to what I heard earlier from the Reform members, they are only interested in the price. They would prefer to adopt the American model which suggests that as an individual it does not matter what the price is as long as it is affordable. It does not matter if it is good value or not.

In the United States we know they are spending at least 2 per cent to 3 per cent more of GDP on a per capita basis for health care, whereas we know in Canada it is expensive but collectively we get a better deal and it is better value. That is where we differ from the Reform Party in the role of government.

However, that does not detract from what the hon. member for Durham is saying. I can recall in Ontario a number of years ago when government was growing that it was introducing all kinds of programs and would say: "This is a great program and it will only cost you 15 cents a week or 15 cents a month". That was one little department of the government keeping 15 cents here and 15 cents there. It all adds up at the end of the year when somebody has to pay for it. We know that the somebody at the end of the year is you, me and everyone else who was involved in the taxation system.

I want to point out one other thing. We have also heard from the Reform members. They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

I would like to point out a strange twist in their philosophy. They stand in their places here and talk about getting tough with criminals: "Let us lock them up, do not give anyone the benefit of the doubt, do not consider the value of rehabilitation. Let us not say to a person: You have served your time, we will give you a second chance. I am a Reformer and I want to lock you up".

Maybe we should start costing what their criminal law amendments would add up to. Maybe we should sit down and ask: What is the price that the Reform Party is putting on the criminal justice system? To you, Mr. Canadian Taxpayer, is it good value? Does it mean a whole lot to you that a person will be locked up forever? What does it mean to you as a taxpayer when we do the collective routine?

I am not a cynic in the sense of the Reform philosophy that there is a price. I am saying to tie the two of them together. Let us look at the price and let us look at the value we will get from it. What is the overall cost and is it good value? Is it something Canadians want? Canadians will have to know what they are paying for.

I realize a number of groups have endorsed this. The present auditor general has said that he shares the view that the cost of government programs and operations should be made more visible to Parliament and to taxpayers.

Today I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour talk about program review and that programs are being made more cost efficient. That is the right thing to do and as a member of the government I applaud that. We must do that. We have no choice. And we are doing that.

But this is not a question of making programs more efficient. It is a question of telling people up front, right then when we introduce a law what it is going to cost the country and what it will mean to every man, woman and child in the country. Legislation has many yardsticks which can be applied to it. We put legislation to all kinds of tests, but this is the one test that has obviously been missing.

I realize that this may impose an onerous burden on certain departments. After having heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour speak, I think it is like a scene out of "My Fair Lady" where Eliza Doolittle was being taught English and she did not want to continue any more. She said that she was tired, fed up and could not carry on. In this case I would suggest that the department has no reason to be tired. It can carry on and it ought to carry on in the vein and with the intent, purpose and thrust of what the hon. member for Durham has proposed in the bill.

It is ironic that the Alberta Taxpayers' Association has said that the bill is a good first kick at the can and deserves the consideration of members of Parliament. This is what the member has succeeded in doing by getting this bill to the floor of this Chamber.

I know there are others who will speak to the bill today and in the future. At the same time I believe it is incumbent upon us to thoroughly examine the bill. In the end I believe we on this side of the House at least will conclude that we are not cynics but we do want to know the price and then we as legislators can determine whether this is good value for the people of Canada.

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today votes were taken. With respect to votes concerning Bill C-29, I sent a note to the table officers to point out that I would be absent during those votes.

Unfortunately, the earlier two votes which were taken my name was applied for the subsequent three votes. I had asked the table officers that I not be shown as being present. I was in fact absent and I was marked present and having voted in favour. I request that I be shown as absent and therefore I would request the consent of the House to have the record correctly reflect that.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Canada, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians sometimes purchase excess amounts of frozen food such as poultry while in the United States. Upon entry to Canada these are taken from them if the individual refuses to pay the excess duty in accordance with agriculture Canada regulations.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. Why is the department insisting on filling our Canadian landfill sites with frozen American turkeys while it steadfastly refuses to allow them to be donated immediately to community food banks and kitchens?