Gurmant Grewal

[Committees of the House, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations joint committee, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-11, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoing.

It has taken more than a decade for the government to accept the need for whistleblower legislation. It took a lobby by the whistleblower community, public outcry, official opposition pressure, highlights by the media, my Bill C-205, and a series of scandals including the George Radwanski affair, the gun registry cost overruns, the HRDC scandal, the scathing report by the current public service integrity officer, and the sponsorship scandal, for the Liberals to finally make good on their 1993 red book promise. Even now it is obvious that their hearts and souls are not in this legislation.

Up to now it seems that the Liberal government's policy has been to control occupational free speech rather than permitting it. They have bullied whistleblowers, intimidated and harassed them, fired them from their jobs, and have ruined their professional and personal lives rather than rewarding them as is done in the United States and other countries.

The Liberals have always believed in secrecy, confidentiality and cover-ups rather than transparency, accountability and corrective action.

Bill C-11 fails to respond to the cynicism of public servants and lack of confidence. It fails to provide adequate protection. It does not promote a climate in the federal public service that encourages bureaucrats to expose wrongdoing and corruption in government.

The biggest problem with the bill is that it authorizes the president of the Public Service Commission to report through a minister rather than directly to Parliament. The minister will then have 15 days, five more than in the previous bill, to table that report in Parliament, more than enough time to plan his counterspin.

For over a decade the PSC has been the third party. It had a mandate to deal with harassment complaints, but was given no authority or mandate to provide any restitution for damages. The public interest is served when employees are free to expose mismanagement, waste, corruption, abuse or cover-ups within the public service without fear of retaliation and discrimination.

Under Bill C-11 only those who make disclosures through the prescribed channels and whose disclosures meet specific criteria are protected. That is not good enough. If whistleblowers want to safely make a disclosure under this legislation, they must report to a supervisor first or ensure they have reasonable grounds for going directly to the president of the PSC. This disclosure must not be deemed unimportant, frivolous or vexatious, and the person must not go public. That is shameful. These provisions describe a process for containing disclosures, not encouraging them.

The scope of Bill C-11 has been somewhat improved from the previous bill when it was first introduced. Some crown corporations have been included. However, the legislation still excludes the RCMP, military personnel, CSIS, CSE and others. This means that a whistleblower, like RCMP Corporal Robert Reid, who had to go public when the authorities covered up his investigation of visa selling in the Hong Kong immigration office, would have no protection under this proposed legislation. What good is a whistleblower protection bill when it cannot provide protection to whistleblowers?

Aside from these important exclusions, the bill includes several other government agencies listed in the schedule to the act; however, cabinet may amend the schedule at any time even after the act is passed in Parliament. That gives blanket power to cabinet. As a result the government could create roadblocks anytime as it deems itself embarrassed and federal government employees may find themselves without whistleblower protection.

Bill C-11 prescribes no punishment, fines or sanctions for those who make reprisals against a whistleblower. Reprisals must be reported within 60 days of the time the whistleblower knew or ought to have known a reprisal was taking place. Although this is twice as long as the time allowed in Bill C-25, the timeline is still far too restrictive.

As I mentioned earlier, three years ago, in the face of government opposition, I introduced legislation to protect whistleblowers. That was a time when many members and many people did not know what whistleblower protection was all about. Last year the Liberals refused to support my bill. They simply lacked the political will to provide protection to whistleblowers. When I blew the whistle on whistleblowing, the Liberals had their ears plugged. They did not even want to go there.

Next week I will be introducing that legislation again because the present legislation is not capable of providing legitimate protection to whistleblowers.

My bill is unique and comprehensive. It is unique because whistleblowers like Brian McAdam; Joanna Gualtieri, founder of FAIR, Federal Accountability, Integrity and Resolution; and Louis Clark, executive director and founder of GAP, Government Accountability Project in the U.S. were consulted to take advantage of their experiences. I thank them for their input and help in drafting my bill.

Let us compare my bill and the government's bill. My bill would permit public servants to disclose alleged wrongdoing to public bodies, including the media, whereas Bill C-11 attempts to keep allegations within the department and restricts the person's right to go to the public.

In my bill an employee who has alleged wrongdoing and suffers from retaliatory action as a consequence would have the right to bring civil action before a court, whereas with Bill C-11 employees must take their claims of reprisals to an applicable labour board whose deliberations could be a very long and tedious process.

In my bill every employee would have a duty to disclose wrongdoing, whereas Bill C-11 warns that disclosure must not be unimportant, frivolous, or vexatious.

In my bill a supervisor, manager or other person of authority who harasses a whistleblower would be subject to criminal prosecution and face a fine of up to $5,000. As well, they would be subject to personal liability for any resulting damages that may be awarded to the employee pursuant to any civil or administrative proceedings. Bill C-11 prescribes no punishment for those who make reprisals against whistleblowers. Where is the protection?

In my bill, an employee who successfully blows the whistle would be recognized with an ex gratia award, whereas Bill C-11 makes no reference to these rewards, even though the current public service integrity officer states that rewards are essential. The government forgot about that.

In my bill, written allegations would be investigated and reported upon within 30 days of receipt, whereas in Bill C-11, no deadlines are set. That means it is open ended, maybe there would be an investigation or maybe not. It only says that investigations are to be conducted as informally and expeditiously as possible.

When I drafted my bill, public service whistleblowers were consulted extensively, whereas the Liberals bullied the whistleblowers and they have not even talked to the whistleblower community.

Whistleblowers should be praised, not punished. They should not pay for their public service by putting their jobs on the line. In fact, I would allow the government to steal from my whistleblower bill and put it into its bill. I am a small l liberal as far as my bill is concerned.

I will ensure that the government definitely looks at my bill in committee. I will allow it to liberally steal from my bill as much as it has been stealing part and parcel from the platform of the Conservative Party.

I believe the bill will be amended in committee, otherwise I would be forced to vote against the bill and force the Liberals, as well as all members in the House, to pass my bill and not the government's bill.

[Criminal Code, October 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to speak to Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is a recycled bill. It was Bill C-12 and Bill C-20 in the past. I have spoken to this bill in the past and my colleagues have contributed quite a bit on the issue of the protection of children.

The Liberal government continues to recycle this bill but it has not taken the appropriate action. Much public pressure and public outrage made the Liberals drop the term “public good” as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have now replaced “public good” with the new defence of “legitimate purpose”. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The bill's criteria for evaluating whether a relationship is exploitive is vague and subjective, and by not raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the Liberals have put Canada's children at risk.

Since 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children, we as lawmakers have the moral responsibility to protect children. Children deserve nothing less than full protection from child pornography.

The legislation that is before us is simply smoke and mirrors. The Liberals ignored the evidence from child advocates and front line police officers who came before us with lots of information to make the legislation effective.

The important mechanism that should be in place to protect children is not there. One is in the definition part, and rather than public good or whatever the legitimate purpose or for the sake of art, that is not good enough.

The second component is the age of consent. Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit all adult-child sex, children will continue to be put at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

As was the case with Bill C-12 and Bill C-20, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. In all western democracies the age of consent is at least 16. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In many other countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, the age is 16. Despite all the premiers agreeing unanimously that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, the Liberal government failed to provide that protection to our children. The age of consent could have even been raised to 18.

The Liberals have simply ignored the mounds of evidence that came before the committee in the past demanding that children be protected from child predators. The Liberal government has failed to provide our children with that protection. Children are our future and they are vulnerable. They need and deserve nothing less than full protection from child predators. We, as lawmakers, should provide that protection to children, otherwise we are failing in our duty.

I have been here since 1997 and I have listened to the Liberal government dither and be indecisive when it comes to providing full protection for family values, whether it is age of consent or providing protection to children.

As lawmakers, we need to make laws with teeth, and increasing maximum sentences does not help. We need mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences, such as the possession of child pornography, so we can secure the protection of children. This is the place where we must do our best to provide protection to our children.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, first, I congratulate the lonely Liberal member who has been participated in this debate for the last two years. He has taken the brunt for the Liberal Party single-handedly. I congratulate him for that. On the other hand, he talks about his government being proud of its record. Let us look at the record.

The Prime Minister when he was finance minister cut $25 billion from health and education. As a result, our health care system is in the current situation of status quo. There is a shortage of doctors, nurses and beds. He created this problem and now he is trying his best to clean it up. He is desperately moving forward in a way to clear a legacy for himself to cover up the mistakes he has made.

Let us look at the softwood lumber crisis. It was the Liberal government that was responsible for the last three years. It sat on its hands and did not take action. This is another example of indecisiveness, which has created a problem for our softwood lumber industry.

Look at the record on fisheries. The government created another mess in the fisheries on the west coast as well as on the east coast.

Let us talk about other things. The member talked about being proud. We have western alienation. The government created that mess. It has abandoned the port police. It has taken the heart out of the coast guard. It has left my province, which is prone to earthquakes, without emergency preparedness. How can the member be feeling proud of the record?

Let us look at other things: the corruption of the government, mismanagement and unaccountability in the government. All these things are compounding, and that member should hang his head in shame rather than feel proud about his government's record.

On the other hand, I feel very proud of the Leader of the Opposition to which the member referred. He is the one who proposed a solution to the problem. If the Liberal government had adopted the solution he proposed, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

The Liberal government's record is in front of us. How can the lonely Liberal member in this chamber be proud of that record? I cannot comprehend that.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, as this is my first opportunity to rise in the 38th Parliament on behalf of the constituents in the new riding of Newton--North Delta, I would like to thank them for putting their trust in me as their member of Parliament. I would also like to thank my former constituents of Surrey Central for their cooperation and support.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment to this important position. I wish you well.

Tonight we are considering the issue of BSE, which demands government action. For exactly 500 days today the government has dithered and shown no leadership while Canada's beef farmers and all those dependent upon the beef industry for their livelihood have suffered devastating financial losses.

It appears that the food producers are not important to the government. For evidence, we need look no further than last week's throne speech. Agriculture and the BSE issue were each mentioned only once and that too was in the most general terms.

In February, the official opposition proposed a set of solutions to the BSE crisis. Unfortunately, due to the Liberal government's politicking, our solutions were not implemented and the situation is critically worse today than it was in February. This government waited until September to announce a flawed aid program after more damage was done to the industry.

The government should not have included BSE assistance for producers as part of the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, CAIS. The CAIS program for disaster relief is a disaster by itself. Many farmers have applied for the CAIS program and have been waiting in excess of eight months without cash payment for the year 2003. If that is this government's definition of an advance payment, how long will it take to get a delayed payment for the year 2004?

Today there are still no application forms available for producers wishing to apply for this desperately needed cash. How can farmers apply for a program that has no application forms and that for all intents and purposes does not exist a month after its existence was announced? As of October 6, the allocated funding for portions of the aid program was still not approved by Treasury Board.

The deadlines and delivery methods for the BSE aid program are administratively inconsistent in every province. As it stands, there will be no allocation by province. This means the Liberals are pitting farmer against farmer and it ensures regional inequity. It is an insult added to injury for farmers. The Liberals are again reinforcing the message that food producers and farmers are not important to the government.

There may not be a quick fix solution to the challenges facing the beef industry. We do, however, need to get more slaughter capacity in Canada to deal with the growing backlog of cattle.

Without the U.S. border opening we still do not really have functional markets. We therefore need a new marketing strategy to find export markets other than the United States to reduce our dependency on that one market.

The government must also address optional long term debt restructuring and proper compensation for cull animals. It must ensure that compensation is adequate to manage and maintain the breeder cow herd. Finally, the federal government should implement tax incentives such as tax deferrals and provide loan guarantees for producers and tax breaks for producers needing to depopulate their herds.

The crisis is worsening across the country. Members know that cattle farmers are not the only ones affected. I met with Maurizio Zinetti of Zinetti Food Products, a Surrey businessman who produces beef products for export to the United States and Japan. Last year Mr. Zinetti's companies lost millions of dollars in sales due to the BSE crisis.

Flawed relief programs and blanket assurances that the border is going to open in the future are simply no longer good enough. Unfortunately for Canadians, the government is not capable of governing. It is only interested in positioning itself for the next election.

We need a Prime Minister who will make informed and timely decisions. The current Prime Minister has baffled, dithered and delayed on softwood lumber, the national missile defence system, same sex marriage, Kyoto, internal party bickering and of course BSE. These are just a few examples.

Let us also not forget the government's mismanagement of the hepatitis C file. Victims are still waiting for compensation, with some shut out of the process entirely. Money set aside for compensation is sitting untouched, collecting $50 million in interest while victims are dying penniless. The government should hang its collective head in shame.

The Prime Minister's indecisiveness means that important issues are being ignored to the detriment of Canadians. Canada needs strong leadership. We need a leader who will make the tough decisions, even if they are initially unpopular. A real leader has to take an informed position and then build consensus around it. We certainly do not need a leader who attempts to govern by poll.

If the Prime Minister had taken the decision when it was supposed to be taken, our farmers and food producers across the country would not have been in the situation in which the weak and arrogant Liberal government has put them in. It is time for the government to take some appropriate action and make sure that our industries, one after the other, survive and Canada becomes more prosperous day by day.

[Health Care, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, health services in British Columbia have ground to a halt as more than 40,000 hospital employees have gone on strike. Hospital closures, shortage of doctors, nurses, beds and equipment have resulted in overworked and demoralized staff. Thousands of British Columbians are suffering with operations postponed and appointments cancelled.

Federal cuts are the root cause of this suffering. The Prime Minister wants credit for fixing health care, but he is the one who broke it. As the finance minister, he unilaterally slashed $25 billion in provincial transfers.

Federal spending on health care has gone down from 50% to 16%, with the provinces left holding the bag, while the Liberals run up surpluses and blow money on one boondoggle after another.

Who is to blame when someone dies while waiting to have an operation or to see a doctor? The Liberals have had more than a decade to fix the problems ailing our health care system, but they have only made matters worse.

It is time for Canadians to seek a second opinion. It is time to elect a Conservative government.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to speak to the bill, Bill C-436, sponsored by the hon. member for East Vancouver. The bill is entitled, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to sponsorship of relatives.

First, I would like to commend the hon. member for her thoughtful and laudable efforts to fix some problems in the immigration system.

Of course there are various pros and cons with respect to the bill. Probably it is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be fine tuned. Some of the objections need to be carefully reviewed and brought to the attention of the authorities so they can be refined and reviewed and the con part can be tackled and the pro side can be highlighted.

I certainly believe the family is an institution which needs to be strengthened. With stronger families, communities are stronger and with stronger communities, then nations become stronger. Canada is a country of immigrants. Some people are first, second, third, fourth, fifth or whatever generation.

As we know, the definition of family could be by marriage, or by blood relationship, or by adoption, any of the three. When this sponsorship issue is dealt with, it is for family reunification. The intent is pro family, and I am very proud to support anything which is pro family. However, we have to deal with the con part, as I said.

Certainly the official opposition welcomes immigrants to Canada. I am sure everyone in this chamber wants legitimate immigrants to come to Canada. However, if they have a shady past or any of the characteristics which make them ineligible to come into Canada, no country wants those people. We welcome legitimate immigrants to Canada. Their legitimacy is defined by different criteria in the Immigration and Citizenship Acts.

I used to be a member of the immigration committee for quite some time and I am quite familiar with the immigration system in Canada, particularly because I come from a constituency which happens to be the largest constituency in population in Canada. More than 210,000 people live in my riding. Most of them are new immigrants, and they have problems dealing with immigration. Some of the problems are pretty reasonable and legitimate, and my staff works overtime on immigration issues. Why? The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is not efficient or effective and the system is clogged.

The caseworks related to different categories of prospective immigrants is entered into the system from one end. It takes a very long time before their cases are processed, then they come from the other end as finished products. Due to the inefficient and ineffective immigration system, the offices of members of Parliament are involved. In fact immigration is like any other department.

Why are members of Parliament not involved with other casework as much as with immigration? Because the immigration department is inefficient, particularly with different categories, whether it is landed immigrants, or family reunification, or other categories of landed immigrants, such as entrepreneurs, even visitor visa cases. All of them are so messed up that it demands there should be some sort of interference in the system from the elected officials on behalf of the constituents they represent.

So even the ministers' permits have been abused--not now but in the past--to give political favours to their constituents. They were politically oriented ministers' permits in the past, many years ago, but I believe there are less of them now. There should be absolutely no political interference in the immigration system or immigration cases. That would be the most preferred choice, but since the system is not working there has to be political interference under the present circumstances, which I believe one day will be eliminated.

It becomes very important because, as the hon. member from the Bloc pointed out, the word immigration is not mentioned even once in the whole budget. The government is completely ignoring the advantages and disadvantages of the system, particularly so with the past cuts in the budget which have meant that the immigration staff, the front end of the security lineup, are not properly trained and do not have proper resources. The system is naturally inefficient.

Many times, the system looks only at the black and white. There is no cultural aspect, no compassionate aspect, and there is no humanitarian aspect reviewed when the initial review of the case takes place outside the country. I can give so many examples, but I will not go there yet.

On the other hand, while we criticize the system, when we say that the system is inefficient, ineffective and clogged, it is also incumbent upon immigrants not to abuse the system. When people in Canada, as well as those outside who want to come to Canada, abuse the system, the system has to draw a line somewhere. When the system is abused, then we have to take hard measures to stop that kind of abuse. No one wants abuse of the system.

I have always given the analogy that Canada is like a home. If someone comes to our front door and rings the bell, we open the door and welcome our guests. On the other hand, if we are sleeping, someone enters through the back door and we wake up in the morning with someone is sitting on the couch, we do not like that. I wish that our immigration system would be such that the front doors are open but the back doors are closed; even the windows and ventilators should be closed.

Some of the delays that cause the abuse to occur are sometimes really very legitimate delays in this system which upset people. For family reunification at present, I think the waiting period is 42 months, which is a very long time. In other countries such as Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, the waiting time is not as long as it is in the immediate relative category of 42 months in Canada. Moreover, when these people are frustrated after applying for reunification with their relatives, they call the 1-800 number at the department and they are always told to check after three months. When they call after three months, it is another three months and so on until two or three years have passed. That is not fair either.

Certainly in the case of spouses, the criteria become that someone has not been wearing the traditional clothes for 45 days after the marriage, or that 700 people did not show up at the marriage, only 200 people showed up, or that the reception was held not at home but at a community hall or something like that. Those kinds of criteria become impediments in the selection or rejection of that particular case. Such arbitrary criteria really become a pain for people to understand, and in fact it becomes inappropriate to judge a case based on that kind of criteria.

I know of a case in my constituency where a husband and wife have been married for eight years. The husband is a Canadian citizen and sponsored his wife to come to Canada. They have a child who is about eight years old. They still have not been reunited in Canada. Such unnecessary delays cause serious problems in families.

On the other hand, in some cases with respect to spousal reunification, the system has been abused. Many cases have been reported recently of husbands or wives coming to Canada and then running away at the airport. They do not go to their intended family. They simply get married in order to come to Canada, which is a critical problem.

I want to summarize now by mentioning the visitor's visa case. There should be some provisions allowing people to either give a personal guarantee or post a bond so that they can bring in legitimate visitors, particularly in a situation like attending a marriage.

Canada's immigration policy has to be fair and competitive. Such issues should be reviewed so that we can be more efficient in judging immigration cases.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the member.

In the democratic deficit, there are many black holes that have never been plugged. One of the big holes is that 80% of the laws we have in this country are by way of regulation and 20% by way of legislation. That 80% component has been completely ignored by Parliament for a very long time.

In fact, Parliament delegates authority to make regulations or statutory instruments to various crown corporations and various agencies and boards. Parliament was delegating that authority, but Parliament did not have the authority to review those regulations. They went without parliamentary scrutiny. I took the initiative and introduced a private member's bill that passed and became law, so that one hole is plugged. I did my part.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about a fixed election date. I anticipate that for the way the government does spending, the way the government handles its budget, and the way the government handles its legislative agenda, all of them move around one axis, one famous point, that is, the election timing.

Does the member think that accountability would be restored to a great extent, that there would be transparency in the system, and that there would be some fairness in the system if there were a fixed election date, particularly with respect to spending, budget and legislative agenda?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada there is only one man in the country who can call an election. We know that when one man has the power to call an election, is it an elected dictatorship or a democracy?

However, with due respect, the Governor General only rubber stamps the decision made by that single person in the whole country. That is very undemocratic.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Most of them have fixed dates for elections.

Even so, some third world countries are more democratic than Canada that is supposed to demonstrate how democratic we are. We are much less democratic in our electoral system as far as practical democracy is concerned compared to many third world countries. Even Vietnam is probably much more efficient in its voting system. Many other parliamentary systems operate much more efficiently. I was in Malaysia and saw how efficient it was as far as voting was concerned.

In a nutshell, it is about time. It does not matter how long this system has been followed. This is a modern world, and we must adopt modern and efficient practices. We must restore democracy to the extent that it becomes a practical democratic country. Canadians do not want an elected dictatorship in this country at all.