Gurmant Grewal

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the minister is here and I and many of my colleagues did not get a chance to ask her questions, may I have unanimous consent to extend the questions and comments period for the minister by just five to ten minutes?

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Bloc for bringing up this particular motion. The member has spoken well on this issue, articulating his party's position.

I believe that generally taxes have gone up in Canada in the last few years. The compliance costs of regulations or statutory instruments in Canada have gone up significantly. It is estimated that $12,000 per family is the compliance cost of various regulations in Canada. It is a hidden tax. On top of that, user fees have gone up, particularly beyond cost recovery. It is unfair and unauthorized taxation. In total, taxes, the compliance costs of regulations and user fees, all types of taxes, are very high.

Where there is unfair competition from countries such as Barbados or the Bahamas and others, it undermines Canada's tax system. Various Canadian institutions and political leaders have taken advantage of this unfair competition. Surprisingly, the former finance minister is alleged to have taken full advantage of this. I would say that he has abused the process, even though there is conflict of interest. Ordinary Canadians do not have the privileges the former finance minister had.

This whole process has created a situation when there is abundant loyalty to Canada and it has jeopardized the sovereignty of Canada in this whole system. I would like to know from the hon. member what he thinks about the system. On the one hand in this system, taxes have gone up, all kinds of taxes, hidden and otherwise, whereas the treaty with Barbados, for example, shows that political leaders in various situations have taken advantage whereas ordinary Canadians cannot. Would the member like to comment and say if he is in agreement?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

The purpose of Bill C-49 is to make a one-time change to the implementation date for the coming into effect of new electoral boundaries. The boundaries will now come into effect on April 1, 2004 instead of August 25, 2004. What is the reason? The reason is that the Liberals want to call an early election. Since 1993 after coming into power, the Prime Minister has called a federal election every time after almost three and a half years rather than after its mandated five year term. I call it political opportunism. That is why the Liberals do not want a fixed date for elections in Canada.

The Liberals call an election at the time of the Prime Minister's choosing, a timing that suits the Liberals politically rather than showing any respect for democracy or any care about the extra costs incurred for frequent elections at much shorter intervals. Early elections are a morally reprehensible waste of resources and an abuse of the system.

The bill today will allow for the continuation of early elections. Canadian taxpayers will have, in effect, paid for an extra election. That is roughly $300 million that could have been better spent on health care, better policing, defence or even applied to the debt or for other needy causes.

The member for LaSalle—Émard visited Surrey last spring and said that when he becomes Prime Minister he will call an election in the spring of 2004. He was not concerned about western representation that day. It was only later when his advisers saw the trouble it would cause did the former finance minister waver from his plan. He faced a potential backlash in western Canada if he called an election before British Columbia and Alberta gained the two new seats each to which they are entitled under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

Of course, the west is underrepresented, we know that, even after the two seats each given to British Columbia and Alberta. The Liberals know that they risk losing what little western support they currently have. If electoral redistribution does not occur before the next election, they know for sure they will lose that support, but they are going to lose that support anyway.

Who is going to trust them? Their record is written on the wall. We all know about the 13 corruption investigations going on with the Liberal Party. We know about the corruption investigations in various departments, boondoggle after boondoggle, the mismanagement, waste, arrogance. There is even the flip-flops, the broken promises, and the recent flip-flop on the definition of marriage. Member after member voted in support of the definition in June 1999 on the Canadian Alliance motion. Then they flip-flopped and we saw the result yesterday. They are playing with core family values.

The member for LaSalle—Émard wants to call a quick election before his honeymoon with the media and the Canadian public wears out. We can see the urgency for calling an early election.

I hate to get personal and I do not intend to be personal, but let me mention that he is getting older day by day. It is best to call an election before age becomes an issue like it did for the current Prime Minister. One of my constituents told me that the so-called ongoing Liberal leadership race is just about replacing a 69 year old lawyer from Quebec with a 67 year old lawyer from Quebec.

If we were to fix election dates, we would not be here today. If we had fixed election dates, we could eliminate the opportunity for political manipulation and save taxpayers the cost of early and frequent elections called on the basis of favourable polls rather than democratic principles.

Sometimes I wonder who is running the ship on the other side. The wannabe prime minister indicated he is interested in a spring election. The next thing we know there is a bill changing the implementation date for electoral boundary changes. It should come as little surprise.

Senior ministers, including the finance minister, the defence minister, the foreign affairs minister, admit they consult or will consult in the future with the member for LaSalle—Émard on policy decisions. Therefore, I wonder who is running the ship on that side out of the two prime ministers. All this while the Prime Minister says that he is running the government in a business as usual fashion. We know what the usual mean?

The government is playing politics with electoral boundaries. Electoral representation is a component of western alienation, but it is not by any means the only part.

Giving British Columbia two more seats will nothing to diminish alienation. When it comes time for giving, the Liberals forget about the west. When it comes time to take away from the west, then the west is never forgotten. We know about the HRDC grants and the various office closures. Last week it closed the call centre for immigration in Vancouver. It shut down military bases, CFB Chilliwack and others. It has ripped the heart out of the Canadian Coast Guard. On investing in the infrastructure development in British Columbia and the west, this is the only province that does not have four lane freeways throughout. Giving out government or CIDA contracts are all focused only in central Canada but the west and Atlantic Canada are forgotten. British Columbia does not have the required emergency preparedness. Because it is sitting on a fault zone, the scientists are predicting an earthquake any time. How about softwood lumber? The crisis continues and the government ignores it as well as the west coast fisheries. I can give a long list but I know you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that my time is about over.

Therefore let me conclude. Election Canada is to be commended for its impartiality and its excellent work but surely we are asking too much of Elections Canada staff by having them deliver the new election boundaries five months ahead of schedule.

I have had the honour to represent the wonderful constituency of Surrey Central for two terms. In fact this is one of the largest constituencies in Canada in population. The people of Surrey Central, and particularly the people of Cloverdale, are not happy with the redistribution as it is designed here. They are not being treated fairly as they witness the segregation of their community.

I made a presentation before the procedure and House affairs committee. I commend the committee for the work that it is doing. It had made a strong recommendation endorsing the proposal which I made to it. It was the strongest proposal endorsed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the Cloverdale issue.

The people of Cloverdale, including the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce, the Cloverdale Rodeo, which has been the second largest rodeo in Canada for years, and the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, all supported my proposal. Now Cloverdale is segregated and joined with another community which has no direct link demographically or otherwise. It is disturbing the balance in the community. Fleetwood, Port Kells, Guildford, Clayton all had a unique connection, but that community has been segregated.

I will allege here that the Liberals have political motives for calling an early election and for electoral process which they have sped up.

I will be supporting the bill for one reason, that it will at least give a little more representation to the west. However I resent the process and I resent the motive behind it.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was the member. I said that it was the party. I and my colleagues have given many examples throughout the time we have been debating this issue.

Let me make one thing clear. I took a position, along with my colleagues, early on in the debate. I advertised it in my local newspaper. I wrote articles inviting the public's opinion. The people in my constituency get what they see. I have backbone and I stand with it. When I put my name on the ballot, people will vote for who I am. I will not be changing my opinion after four years like those members have done on their side.

There are 301 members in this Chamber who represent 301 different communities. Leadership is not about looking at the polls and then making a decision. Leadership is about taking a principled position, standing behind it and then developing a consensus based on that.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance motion reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage. I will try to be very brief so that my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan can share the time with me.

In June 1999, I rose in this very chamber to debate the same motion, quite aware of the future court challenges to the definition of marriage. On that day, parliamentarians sent a powerful message to the judiciary, making it clear where we stood on this issue. An overwhelming majority of members, 216 to 55, on both sides of the House rose to support our motion reaffirming the definition of marriage. By the way, only 11 Liberal members opposed the motion that day.

As it turns out, however, the courts did not care what legislators had to say on the issue. When the Ontario Court of Appeal challenged Parliament by arbitrarily redefining marriage, the Liberals' true agenda came out. The government refused to appeal the Ontario ruling, deliberately undermining Parliament's clear position. After campaigning on their promise, one by one the member for LaSalle—Émard and others are abandoning the public vote they cast in 1999 in favour of marriage and in favour of Parliament's democratic authority on this issue.

The justice minister has referred an amended definition of marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of three provincial court decisions striking down the definition of marriage as unconstitutional. Once these judges, most appointed by the Prime Minister, have ruled on the issue, the Liberals will demand that a democratically elected Parliament simply rubber stamp the bill.

It is bad enough in this era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the judiciary has not only assumed the power to strike down laws but also to read into laws things that are simply not there. It is a wrong precedent and absolutely a slap in the face of democracy.

The government's actions will draw the Supreme Court even further into politics and take away even more power from Parliament. The anointed Liberal leader and next prime minister will have a larger democratic deficit on his hands.

I have attended about 20 wedding ceremonies during the break where people have asked me to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Canadians, irrespective of religion or ethnic background, are disappointed by the Liberal government for their flip flopping in the last four years and for being proactive in changing the definition of marriage, which is the core of family values.

During the summer break, I held very successful town hall meetings on family values in Cloverdale, Fleetwood, and Newton in Surrey Central. My constituents have had a free and fair opportunity to express their views. My office has received a tremendous amount of correspondence on this issue and on religious freedom and family values.

The issue of marriage is at the core of family values. My constituents have told me that family values are important because they value our families. Families are the building blocks and foundation of society. The stronger the families the stronger the communities, and the stronger the communities the stronger our nation will be.

The family is a fact of life. It is not an option but a need of our society. The family is the reason that society exists. The family provides the loving, caring and supportive relationships. Because of families, we are able to nurture, develop and protect our children.

Therefore, federal laws should uphold our family and social values. The Liberals have offered a bundle of anti-family values since 1993. The Liberals have refused to protect the institution of family by not standing up to the challenges to marriage, spouses, family status and structure. Issues like divorce, shared parenting, custody and access and adoption are issues where they have shown weakness, and they refuse to protect children from sexual predators and child pornography, prostitution and abuse.

We know about the sex books for the kindergarten students in Surrey and the films and Internet to which children are being exposed.

The Liberals have refused to raise the age of consent from 14 to at least 16 for an adult to have sex with a child.

The Liberals have refused to crack down on sexual abusers and to put in place an effective sex offender registry. They have also failed to make tougher laws against violent crime and to put in place minimum sentences or other deterrents and prevention. We know the criminal justice system works for criminals, not for the victims.

The Liberals have failed to respect life in assisted human reproductive technology.

We all know about religious freedom in this place. We know about Bill C-250, which is the other side of the coin that is causing serious disturbance in society for religious freedom.

The Liberals have failed to offer equal opportunities to all citizens. They have failed to uphold social safety nets and benefit programs for families: security, CPP, retirement savings and medicare. They have failed to produce a family friendly income tax system that would not discriminate against stay at home parents. Two families in the same circumstances with the same total family income should not have different tax structures or tax bills.

I believe that Canadian law should be pro-family. Families are constituted by marriage, blood relation or by adoption. Marriage is a social institution. Marriage is not an option. It is a precondition for social survival. Threats to marriage and family poses counterfeit moral standards. Redefining marriage will no longer be a carrier of the message that children need mothers and fathers.

Where would the line be drawn on what would constitute a marriage. How about polygamy, age, blood relations? There would be no end to the litigation if this were opened.

Marriage is not only under attack by the courts but also by the ruling Liberal government. The federal government is making a grave error in judgment by not appealing the lower court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and correcting the lower courts for overstepping their jurisdictions and then leave the decision to Parliament.

It is the role of Parliament, not the courts, to debate balancing conflicting rights in developing public policy and the laws of the land. Judges have the responsibility of finding the law as it exists, as it is made in this place.

Parliament has already given homosexual couples the same social and tax benefits as heterosexual couples in common law relationships. The definition of marriage and spouse were untouched but the definition of common law relationship was expanded to include same sex couples.

Some people say that this is an issue of equality. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How can it be equal to a union of two men or two women? I see something wrong with this equation. Moreover, some people say that it is an issue of human rights. I believe that it is an issue of moral values. I believe that the unique character and institution of marriage should be strongly respected and legally recognized.

I will therefore be voting to retain the traditional definition of marriage because it is what I believe in, what my constituents have told me, it is our party policy and I believe it is the right thing to do.

We will continue to defend democracy and the traditional definition of marriage, and the overall package of family values which the Liberals have polluted and not offered in a real sense to the Canadian people.

[Member for LaSalle—Émard, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today the member for LaSalle—Émard stood before the Canadian people making empty promises.

The infamous red book contains a long litany of broken promises: scrap, kill or abolish the GST, but since 1993 Canadians have shelled out nearly $200 billion in GST; to preserve and protect medicare, but he cut over $25 billion in health transfers to the provinces; to restore faith in government, but there were five cabinet resignations last year alone; to have more free votes in the House, but there have been virtually none and certainly less than the previous government; to renegotiate NAFTA, and thankfully not.

Those are only five of the biggest whoppers in the red book. There are 131 more.

With his track record, it is little wonder the former finance minister now wants to keep the public in the dark about his agenda.

Canadians will not be hoodwinked a second time. Of course, that is unless he stands for nothing but being prime minister.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, on our return to Parliament, to rise today on behalf of the residents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-34.

The Liberal government believes in half measures, which is what we have before us today, a half measure full of loopholes.

Let us remember why we are debating Bill C-34, the first item on the agenda today. We have witnessed boondoggle after boondoggle. Blind trusts are not blind anymore. If at all blind, it is only to the public. There have been so many contract scandals and leadership fundraising peccadillos that the Prime Minister has yielded to the opposition pressure to bring in the new ethics rules.

So numerous have the infractions been that people are losing track. Never before has the word corruption been uttered so often in this Chamber: not during the Pacific scandal, not during the pipeline debate and not during the notorious first term of Prime Minister Mulroney.

The Liberals came to office 10 years ago promising to restore honesty and integrity to government. Shortly after the 1993 election, the Prime Minister rose in the Commons to announce the dawning of a new era in government ethics, promising to make the system more transparent and open. One would have thought the Liberals would have had an easy time improving on that record but not so. The government has failed to live up to its promise. If anything, government ethics have fallen to a new low.

Half of Canadians surveyed last year believed that this government fared no better ethically than its predecessor. Fifteen per cent believed that the government had worse ethical standards. A Leger Marketing poll taken in April 2002 revealed that 69% of Canadians believed that the federal Canadian political system was highly or somewhat corrupt. Eighty per cent said that they wanted a major reform in the way government contracts were awarded.

Looking back over the last year and a bit it is little wonder that the public has lost faith in the honesty and integrity of the government. With Bill C-34 the Liberals have ensured that a new ethics watchdog for ministers will be an unaccountable, government controlled lapdog.

The Liberals came to power with a mandate to govern based on their red book promises. The red book described the problem of ethical integrity in the government, one of the reasons the previous government was removed. It states on page 91:

--after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about political institutions, government, politicians and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

What has been done? There has been absolutely no change since 1993. The Prime Minister wasted no time before reneging on his promise. Instead of an ethics watchdog, he installed a lapdog who reports in confidence to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government repeatedly got away with questionable behaviour. No wonder the lapdog commissioner never gained the public confidence so crucial to be effective in his office.

The Liberals have failed to deliver on their own specific red book promises. So much so that they even voted against their own red book promise during a Canadian Alliance motion to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

What has the Prime Minister's present song been? Up until the former minister of national defence, nobody had been forced to resign. Does that mean he actually dealt with the problems that would lead to resignations? No.

It just meant that his standard was that no one ever had to resign. He has a completely different code of conduct. If a minister engages in misconduct, gross incompetence or outrageous statements he or she is backed to the hilt by the Prime Minister. Then in the next cabinet shuffle they are shipped off to Denmark or so. However he can say that there has been no misconduct and no one has ever been fired in his government, but we know the facts. The fact is that the list of people who should have been fired is longer than the list in the previous Conservative government.

Last year alone Mr. Alfonso Gagliano resigned as minister of public works following accusations that he used his ministerial influence to get jobs for his friends and family. The minister of national defence resigned after revelations that he gave an untendered contract to a former girlfriend. The member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell was demoted from public works to House leader for staying at a retreat with which his department had done business. The solicitor general resigned after the ethics counsellor concluded that he breached conflict of interest rules by directing government projects and contracts to friends and family.

All of that of course just generates cynicism. It is worse because after talking about ethics and opportunistically getting elected on this issue, the Liberals have turned around and have done nothing about it.

Bill C-34 is flawed. We the opposition MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee tried to correct the serious flaws proposed in Bill C-34 only to have Liberal MPs on the committee defeat the amendments.

The Liberals rejected amendments that would have strengthened the ethics enforcement system in the following ways: making the ethics commissioner actually independent by requiring two-thirds of MPs to approve in a free vote the person appointed as commissioner; making the commissioner independent by guaranteeing that the commissioner's pay could not be cut if cabinet were upset about the commissioner's activities, and by limiting the commissioner to one seven-year term so that the commissioner would not be tempted to please cabinet in order to secure another term in office; ensuring that the public has a right to file complaints with the ethics commissioner about unethical behaviour by ministers; ensuring that the ethics commissioner could be taken to court for failing to enforce ethics rules; and ensuring the ethics commissioner could not give secret advice to the Prime Minister.

If the Liberals were serious about honouring their promises they would grant the House the authority to seek out and nominate a truly independent ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner would report to the House as a whole either through a select committee or an appropriate standing committee. That would remove the influence of the Prime Minister and his office.

B.C. has the best process for selecting an ethics commissioner. In that legislature, members are directly involved in the selection process. An all party committee makes the selection and the recommendation to the premier and then, in turn, the premier gets the confidence of two-thirds of the members.

The ethics commissioner would be responsible for investigating misconduct of MPs from all parties. Therefore it is absolutely mandatory that the commissioner be totally neutral, politically. Under the bill that would not be the case.

The code of conduct for MPs and their spouses is included to take the heat off the real issue, for example, the constant misconduct by the Liberal cabinet. If this is the best the Liberals can come up with in a decade of ministerial mishaps, then we should all be very disappointed.

It is no surprise that confidence in the Liberal government and in its honesty and integrity is dithering. Thirteen different investigations are ongoing currently involving the Liberals.

While the commissioner would table public reports each year, no information required to be kept confidential can be included. Where is the assurance of transparency?

The public would be denied the right to file ethics complaints against any parliamentarians. Bill C-34 prohibits a court review. Due to separate ethics officers for MPs and senators, there are different ethical standards for the two groups of politicians.

Since my time is over I would say there are no measures in place that, at best, fail to match our confidence and, at worst, undermine it further. Bill C-34 is mostly a damage control exercise to camouflage big scandals involving ministers. Therefore I cannot support the bill.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 13th, 2003]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I appreciate the opportunity to conclude the third hour debate on Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act concerning disallowance procedure for statutory instruments, commonly called regulations.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North for seconding my bill. I am proud to recognize that Bill C-205 is the work of the collective efforts of members of all parties in the House as well as senators, particularly those who now sit on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations which I had the honour to chair. I would like to thank my co-chair, members and the staff of the scrutiny committee for their support and input on the bill.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo--Alberni for allowing me this opportunity by giving away his spot scheduled for today in exchange for my bill.

While I am thanking everyone, I would also like to thank the staff of the House who helped me in the drafting of the bill. I highly appreciate the efforts made by everyone who was involved in the bill, particularly all the House leaders who were very cooperative on the bill. I am feeling very lucky that the bill will soon become law. I appreciate the cooperation I sought from members and senators.

For the people who are watching, disallowance is one of the traditional means at the disposal of a legislature to control the making of delegated legislation by giving legislators an opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegate of Parliament. The disallowance procedure has been in existence in other Commonwealth jurisdictions for many years. This bill is intended to provide a legislative framework for a similar procedure at the federal level in Canada.

The bill would provide, first, a legislative basis for the procedure that is currently set out in our standing orders, so we will have a legislative footing for the disallowance procedure; and second, it would extend the application of that procedure to regulations made by persons or bodies other than the governor in council or ministers of the Crown.

In other words, all regulations in Canada would be reviewed and scrutinized by the standing joint committee or by the authority of Parliament through that committee. All regulations would be under the scrutiny and review of the elected officials in Parliament.

The Parliament of Canada is the source of all legislative authority, In fact, that authority is delegated not only to the governor in council and ministers, but also to various other regulation making authorities such as the CRTC, Canadian Transportation Agency, and many other agencies and boards.

When those agencies exercise that delegated authority to make regulations, those entities are exercising a power that finds its source in the House of Commons and in Parliament. Parliament, therefore, has not only a right but a responsibility to control the exercise of those powers which are delegated to it.

Effective parliamentary scrutiny must be accompanied by effective parliamentary control. That effective parliamentary control was not there before. This was not always the case for many years, since regulations have been subject to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny for almost three decades. The gap was partly addressed in 1986 when the government of the day agreed to be bound by standing orders providing for a disallowance procedure.

However, because of the non-legislative nature of our standing orders, the current procedure could not deal with a portion of the regulations subject to parliamentary review and scrutiny.

As everyone knows, of all the laws we see in this country, 80% of that law comes through the back door by way of regulations, and 20% we legislate in this House. All the bills that we passionately debate and vote for are about only about 20% of the total complement. So the significance of this bill is huge, and moreover, the statutory instruments in fact affect every Canadian. As we wake up in the morning and have coffee or cereal for breakfast, there are regulations which govern them. For everything every Canadian does in a day, I am sure there is some sort of impact of regulations. Moreover, for businesses the compliance costs for the regulatory burden, commonly called red tape, is huge. It is estimated to be about $113 billion. It is a huge cost to businesses.

Regulations have huge implications on the day to day life of Canadians. Moreover, there is a huge demand and need for regulatory reform in Canada and I am sure that we will be working on it. There is a need for moving from red tape to smart tape and from smart tape to smart government. For regulations where there is any overlap or anything like that, we have to reform them.

I will not take much time but I want to mention a couple of facts. When the current procedure was first implemented in 1986, it was stated that it was to be an experiment, with its success leading to a statutory disallowance procedure. The experiment has been a success, and after ignoring this for many years, this success justifies us in extending the scope of the disallowance procedure in order that parliamentary control coincides fully with parliamentary scrutiny. This can only be achieved by means of legislation. That is what Bill C-205 is going to do.

More than three decades after the enactment of the Statutory Instruments Act, I believe that the time has come for the Parliament of Canada to give itself the means to ensure the democratic control of federal delegated legislation. If my bill is passed, this legislation would be a major historic milestone in restoring accountability and democratic and parliamentary reforms for which my party, the Canadian Alliance, has been asking for a very long time. Placing the current disallowance procedure on a statutory footing will make it possible to close the gap between parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary control. It will also ensure that the procedure is legally effective.

Bill C-205 is intended to ensure that parliamentarians are in a position to exercise their responsibility for the effective oversight of the exercise of legislative powers they entrust to various delegates. This bill will restore democracy to the system rather than having bureaucrats controlling regulations that affect all aspects of Canadians' lives.

The procedure set out in Bill C-205 for the reform of the current disallowance procedure has been endorsed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The concerns raised earlier by some members have already been accommodated since they did not go to the principles of the bill but rather to some perceived practical difficulties.

I see that the government House leader is very anxious to have this bill go to the Senate, so I would like to conclude that a consensus has been reached among all members of the committee and the House leaders of all parties. I can assure the members that the bill is now absolutely ready to be sent for the next step. I urge and ask all members to give their unanimous consent to send this bill to the other House for it to be enacted into law. I thank members in advance for their support of this important initiative.

Since I am the last speaker before we adjourn, I wish you, Madam Speaker, and all the members of this House a wonderful summer recess break.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 13th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act (disallowance procedure for statutory instruments), be concurred in at report stage.

[Foreign Affairs, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a local Canadian Sikh was forced by passport officials to remove his turban in order to speed up his application and arrive in India in time for his mother's funeral. In another case, a lady was forced to remove her dupatta for passport pictures.

Sikhs' turbans are religious articles of faith. Canadian Sikhs have been battling prejudice and discrimination for years. Will the Liberal government and the foreign affairs minister give clear instructions to the passport department so that Canadian Sikhs will not face humiliation during future visits to the passport office?