Gurmant Grewal

[Terrorism, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Inderjit Singh Reyat was sentenced yesterday to five years in prison after pleading guilty to 329 counts of manslaughter in connection with the 1985 Air India bombing.

Reyat has served 10 years in a British prison after being found guilty in connection with a bomb that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport one hour before the Air India plane exploded on the way to England from Canada. At the time, the Air India bombing was the world's worst act of aviation terrorism and it remains the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

After the most expensive and lengthy criminal investigation in Canadian history, where is the justice? For 17 years there has been no closure to this matter for the families of the 329 victims of the bombing. Yesterday's decision will do nothing to relieve their pain and suffering. Their wounds continue to remain open and bleed.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to again participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technology and related research.

I would like to share with my colleagues the fact that many of my constituents have contacted me on this issue and almost all of them want me to oppose the bill unless it is amended.

I would also like to acknowledge that many members in the House have worked hard on the bill, specifically the hon. member for Yellowhead and the hon. member for Mississauga South, as well as the former leader of our party. They have worked really hard, along with our other caucus members.

Human reproductive technology is an area clouded by a high degree of moral ambiguity. There is little agreement about the harms and benefits of the relevant technologies. Still, virtually all Canadians would agree that there is a pressing need for laws to oversee the entire area of reproductive genetics.

Since 1997, when the proposed human reproductive and genetic technologies act died on the Order Paper, we have had Dolly, the cloned sheep, the discovery of stem cells, and the completion of the mapping of the human genome. A lot has taken place since then and what the next years hold in store is anyone's guess.

Thankfully, the government has finally seen fit to begin the process of regulating these complicated and controversial issues. Earlier the government was sitting on the fence, not being decisive, but now finally it has recognized that it has to deal with these controversial issues.

The Group No. 6 amendments we are debating today consist of 11 motions, all of which I support as improvements to the present bill. I will go over one by one some of the motions that I deem particularly necessary in this debate.

Motion No. 92, for instance, places reasonable requirements on equivalency agreements that the health minister negotiates with the provinces. All of us are aware of the negotiations that recently took place. In “Building Families”, this amendment was a health committee recommendation. Transparency and accountability in this area are needed. The public must be consulted on draft agreements and the text of such agreements must be made public. It is a good amendment and we will support it.

Motion No. 93 deletes clause 65 entirely, thus removing the power of the governor in council to make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes of the bill. This is a good amendment because we have serious concerns with one of the subclauses in clause 65. We support this amendment. It allows the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provisions of the act through regulations. I have spoken enough about how the government does not govern but rules through the back door by way of regulations. This amendment will limit the ability to rule through the back door.

There are important reasons why the controlled activities listed in the bill require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life. Cabinet should not be permitted to exempt certain activities through regulations. This is a get out of jail free card. It is a very serious, dangerous subclause.

Motion No. 94 in the group amends the bill to remove the ability of the governor in council to make regulations respecting transgenics, the subject of clause 11. Transgenics are animal-human combinations. Again this is very important and I am sure my constituents will appreciate my support for this amendment.

Motion No. 96 is a procedural amendment respecting a Canadian Alliance amendment passed at committee. Our amendment, now subclause 15(3.1), specifies that:

A licensee who transfers an in vitro embryo to another licensee shall notify the Agency of the transfer in accordance with the regulations.

That will allow tighter control and I support that. The minister's amendment follows from our amendment's mention of “in accordance with the regulations”.

Motion No. 98 again is a minor amendment specifying that regulations shall be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, rather than to “an” appropriate committee. What is important here is that regulations shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons, something the Alliance fought for and won at committee. Previous wording said that regulations “may” be referred to the House committee, but if this amendment passes they will be referred to a committee of the House. We fought to enhance accountability and transparency and we won.

In Motion No. 100, again the amendment would require equivalency agreements to be renewed whenever there is a change in any relevant federal or provincial legislation. This seems appropriate and reasonable. For example, if Bill C-13 is ever amended to enable children conceived through donor insemination to know the identity of their biological parents, any equivalency agreement that may be in place should also be renewed to reflect such a change. It is an important change. Children born through the process need to know their biological parents.

Motion No. 103 deletes clause 71, which allows the grandfathering of controlled activities “until a day fixed by the regulations”. As currently worded, the clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect, thereby avoiding licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. This could result in a stampede toward controlled activities, for example embryonic research, before the bill takes effect.

The current clause is a get out of jail free card. It allows the governor in council to exempt controlled activities through regulations. Controlled activities should not be grandfathered. There are important reasons why controlled activities otherwise require licences and why violations are subject to prosecution: because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life. This should not be allowed. At the very best, the bill should specify a time limit on grandfathering and not leave it to the regulations. That is why I support this amendment.

In Motion No. 104 the amendment specifies that grandfathered activities should be permitted only as long as such activities have no change in scope or purpose. The intent here is to prevent researchers from changing the scope of activities after they have qualified for grandfathering under the bill, similar to Motions Nos. 105, 103 and 104. We support them for these reasons. Motion No. 104 adds the requirement that grandfathered activities should require a licensee if there are changes in the scope or purpose of such activities.

These amendments will ensure tighter control and therefore the manipulation of human life or creation would be under watch.

Similarly, Motion No. 103 specifies that controlled activities should only be permitted for 90 days after the coming into force of the act. The 90 day limit on grandfathering is far superior to the open ended “until a day fixed by the regulations”.

Since my time is over, I would like to conclude by saying that the public debate surrounding assisted human reproductive technologies signifies this issue's importance to Canadians. The provisions of Bill C-13 carry great consequences for individuals, families and therefore society as a whole. It is imperative that members be allowed to vote their conscience on the bill. An issue with such high ethical implications should not be decided upon through strict party discipline. The Prime Minister should indicate that there will be a free vote on Bill C-13.

[Whistle Blower Human Rights Act, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the members who participated in this debate on Bill C-201, my private member's bill, which provides in law for the protection of a whistleblower in the workplace. It prohibits retaliatory action against whistleblowers. It ensures that Canada sets into law, not in just a wishy-washy, half-baked policy, the framework for a legal grievance procedure and a defined recourse for our conscientious public servants who report wrongdoing within the system.

Bill C-201 provides for a mechanism to address the wrongdoing and compensates the whistleblowers for any damages they suffer. We need to encourage public servants to come forward when they find evidence of wrongdoing, corruption or the misuse of taxpayers' money.

The threat of employer retaliation must be eliminated in order to encourage government employees to speak up. By passing legislation, Parliament will send a clear message to employees that they will be protected by law if they blow the whistle. Time Magazine declared 2002 the year of whistleblowers and featured three famous whistleblowers on the front page. If this bill were passed, with appropriate legislation in place perhaps Maclean's magazine would make a similar declaration in 2003.

There is a very important need for the bill. The drinking water fiasco in Walkerton, Ontario could have been prevented. As well, the September 11 terrorist attacks highlight a longstanding necessity to strengthen free speech protection for national security whistleblowers. Also, the accounting misdeeds that led to the collapse of corporate giants like Enron, Arthur Andersen and WorldCom and resulted in thousands of workers losing their jobs left many wondering why someone did not blow the whistle on these dishonest practices sooner.

Many countries have this whistleblower legislation, as I mentioned, such as the United States, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. In the United States, whistleblower protection was passed unanimously by Congress in 1989, a long time ago, and was strengthened again by a unanimous vote in 1994. In the U.S. there is also a whistleblower reporting agency. Under the federal false claims act in the U.S.A. a whistleblower can receive a percentage of money that is recovered.

Here in Canada we need such legislation. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which is a national union representing about 36,000 professional and scientific employees, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing about 150,000 federal public servants, have been calling for the enactment of legislation to protect federal public sector employees from reprisals for blowing the whistle. Whistleblowers should not be denied fair and just redress for the injuries they suffer as a result of disclosing corruption and rot in the system.

Bill C-201 is a unique and comprehensive bill. 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 the U.S. Government Accountability Project, GAP, were consulted to take advantage of their real life experiences. I thank them for their input in drafting the bill.

However, the government does not seem prepared to pass legislation, being content instead with an internal disclosure policy that even its overseer says is flawed. Despite a caucus document that was approved a long time ago, I consider this another broken promise. It was promised in caucus that it would support whistleblower legislation and today the parliamentary secretary denied that.

The non-legislative approach offers little new incentive for employees or potential whistleblowers in this country who would rather not disclose wrongdoing to their employers. It is an affront to democracy. It is inhibiting transparency and accountability in the government and putting the lives of many Canadians in jeopardy because something going wrong somewhere will not be reported to the public. I think it is an affront to democracy and it should not be happening.

The government still has a chance to support the bill. If members support the bill, I urge them to send it to a committee where it can be amended if there is any problem with it.

I thank all the members who participated in this debate.

[Whistle Blower Human Rights Act, February 5th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-201, an act respecting the protection of employees in the public service who make allegations in good faith respecting wrongdoing in the public service, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and many whistleblowers to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-201, the whistle blower human rights act, which I call in short, WHRA. I thank the hon. member for Elk Island for seconding this most important bill.

The purpose of Bill C-201 is to protect members of the Public Service of Canada from retaliation for making, in good faith, reasonably well-founded allegations of wrongdoing in the public service to a supervisor or to a public body.

Thousands of Canadians, both in the private and public sector, witness wrongdoing on the job. Most remain silent but a few cannot keep quiet. Their sense of duty and love for their country results in their choosing to speak out by blowing the whistle.

Whistleblowers are sometimes regarded as heroes, particularly when exposing serious dangers to public health or safety. At other times, they are perceived as disloyal employees or vilified as traitors.

Employees who expose workplace wrongdoing almost always pay a heavy price for their decision. They sometimes face different forms of retaliation. Punishments range from being shunned by their colleagues to harassment to termination to being blacklisting.

Feature films like The Insider , which depicts Jeffrey Wigand, a tobacco company researcher who exposed his employer on 60 Minutes , for lying about the dangers of smoking and whose life was shattered as a result, acts as a deterrent to potential whistleblowers.

Let us take a moment to remember some of the well publicized cases in Canada.

Bernard Dussault, chief actuary, Canada pension plan, reported that he was asked to modify numbers to paint a more positive state of the CPP. He was fired.

Michelle Brill-Edwards, senior physician in Health Canada's prescription drug approval process, was pressured to approve medication that had caused deaths in the United States. She went public and had to resign from her job.

Joanna Gualtieri, portfolio manager for Latin America and Caribbean in DFAIT, blew the whistle on waste and lavish spending on diplomatic housing and embassies. The Inspector General and Auditor General of Canada later supported her allegations. She was harassed and marginalized within the department. Finally, she had to quit, go through the expensive courts and her career was ruined.

Brian McAdam was a 25 year veteran foreign service officer in Canadian diplomatic missions in the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, South America and Asia. In 1991 he documented evidence of corruption at Canada's foreign mission in Hong Kong. I talked about that in some of my previous speeches. He was demeaned and ostracized by his colleagues and finally he gave up. He took an early retirement.

Michael Sanders, financial analyst, Office of the Superintendent for Financial Institutions, blew the whistle on the absence of sufficient safeguards to protect taxpayers against the collapse of major financial institutions. He was fired from his job.

Dr. Shiv Chopra, a senior veterinary drug evaluator in Health Canada's Therapeutic Products and Food Branch, blew the whistle on the drug approval process for bovine growth hormones. He said human health concerns were being ignored due to pressure from lobbyists of drug companies. He suffered harassment.

Corporal Robert Reid, a veteran RCMP officer associated with the report called “Sidewinder”, which has been ignored due to political pressure, paid a huge price like others.

There are many other cases: Dr. Margaret Haydon, Health Canada; Marilla Lo, Treasury Board; Russell Mills, the Ottawa Citizen ; Bob Stenhouse, RCMP; and Dr. Barry Armstrong, Canadian Armed Forces. The list goes on but since my time is limited, I will stop naming them.

If public servants reveal wrongdoings within their departments or agencies, should they suffer as consequence or should they be rewarded? I believe employees should be able to raise their concerns without fear of reprisal. This is why I introduced my bill, Bill C-201, which would make it an offence to discipline or disadvantage an employee for such actions and provides for a fine and order of restitution to the employee.

The Liberal cabinet members, while in opposition, are on the record supporting whistleblower protection. For instance, the former Liberal Party critic for public sector ethics and current government House leader, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, said in 1992:

The [whistleblowers] bill provides protection for people who are trying to act in the best public interest...It provides for means to protect people who are employees of the public sector and feel morally bound to protect the interests of the public.

He went on to say:

Why should someone who is defending the public interest in good conscience have to then defend themselves in courts and everywhere else for having taken what was right to start with? That is the difficulty with the absence of any kind of law that protects whistleblowers.

He also said:

I think as a general principle all of us who represent the public interests in this House should believe in our conscience that it is not the side of the boss you take, it is the side of the public because it sent us here. That is the fundamental principle of our democratic system.

He went on to say:

In order to provide that kind of accountability and those means, we need a bill such as this...I think in principle, I like it.

The hon. member then went on to quote from a Liberal caucus approved document. The document was entitled “Public Sector Ethics” and it called for whistleblower protection. I do not agree with the government House leader very often but on this issue I absolutely agree with him.

Since the direct quotation establishes that the Liberals, their caucus and the former Liberals ethics critic agreed in principle with the whistleblower protection legislation, the million dollar question is: after 10 years, where is the whistleblower protection legislation?

Since 1993, there have been no government bills on this subject. Maybe it did not get a chance to draft it but now we have one, which is Bill C-201.

Sound legislation protects democracy from itself. The presence of a dictatorship coincides with the lack of sound legislation and the habitual rejection of transparency and accountability. The habitual rejection of transparency and accountability in public life systematically corrupts social institutions. Corrupt social institutions breed neglect, political interference, waste, mismanagement, corruption and weaken our national security.

Whistleblowers are now being muzzled and denied a forum. The Public Service Commission has no power to hear the cases of whistleblowers. The Public Service Staff Relations Board has no jurisdiction for a whistleblowing claim. Ministers do not even respond to letters from whistleblowers. A good starting point is the creation of and passage of legislation that is directed at institutions that are publicly funded.

Some people might come up with a lame excuse and say that we have an internal disclosure policy. The Public Service Integrity Office was established by the terms of this Treasury Board policy to be an agency to facilitate the internal disclosure by public servants of wrongdoing in the public service. It is considered to be independent, external and impartial to receive and investigate good faith disclosure allegations alleging wrongdoing.

Let us look at the contrast between the whistleblowers human rights act, the WHRA, and the internal disclosure policy, IDP.

First, according to the WHRA, every employee has a duty to disclose wrongdoing. Under IDP, employees have no obligation to reveal wrongdoing, though the integrity officer has criticized the IDP for this failure.

The WHRA would permit public servants to disclose alleged wrongdoing to public bodies, including the media. On the other hand, under IDP unauthorized external disclosures can result in disciplinary action, including termination of employment.

Under the WHRA, a whistleblower would have the right to bring a civil action before a court. Under IDP, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is an option for employees facing harassment.

According to the WHRA, a supervisor, a manager or other person of authority who harasses a whistleblower would be subject to criminal prosecution and would 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 an employee pursuant to any civil or administrative proceeding.

According to the IDP, employees are subject to disciplinary actions, including termination of employment. Superiors are not liable or responsible.

According to the WHRA, the minister responsible for the relevant department shall issue a public apology to an employee who is successful in a claim. Under IDP, there is nothing of this nature.

According to the WHRA, an employee who successfully blew the whistle would also be recognized with an ex gratis award. Under IDP, there are no rewards, but only punishment for whistleblowers.

The integrity officer wants some sort of reward system introduced to offer encouragement to public servants to come forward in good faith with evidence of wrongdoing.

According to the WHRA, written allegations shall be investigated and reported upon within 30 days of receipt. In the IDP there is no time guarantees even in feeble attempts.

With WHRA, the minister shall ensure that remedial action is taken promptly. IDP promises a prompt response and failure to do so will result in the integrity officer taking his report to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

According to the WHRA, the President of the Treasury Board shall create a registry in which a copy of every written allegation is deposited. This registry would be made available to the public. In the IDP the integrity officer issues an annual report to Parliament.

Dr. Edward Keyserlingk, Canada's integrity officer, began his work in April 2002. He is critical of the government's current whistleblowing policy, not legislation, and he argues that Canada needs a tougher whistleblowing policy. It should be a public servant's duty to expose any suspected wrongdoing, and not enough people are coming forward.

He says that whistleblowers should be rewarded with promotions and citations. He says that the creation of his seven person office is not good enough to stop the inertia, suspicion and fear of job reprisals so ingrained in the system.

By May 2002, the integrity officer had received 45 cases and 21 were quickly closed. Either the issue was resolved, or the matter was referred to another jurisdiction, or a decision was made not to pursue or it did not come within the purview of his office.

Dr. Keyserlingk identifies that the root problem is a lack of leadership and accountability. I translate that lack of leadership into lack of political will. Critics say that we will have a framework that offers no protection to public servants because the minister's office said so.

In many countries around the world public service employees are protected by whistleblowing legislation. The United Kingdom passed the public interest disclosure act in 1999. The U.S. federal employees were initially protected under the civil service reforms act, 1978, which empowered a special council of the merit system protection board and it was unanimously passed. In Canada we do not have such legislation.

Therefore I would ask all hon. members to kindly support Bill C-201 and let us send it to the committee where any appropriate changes or amendments can be made.

[Softwood Lumber, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what exactly is the international trade minister celebrating today in Washington? The government's incompetence with the softwood lumber file? The unemployment of 4,000 B.C. forestry workers? The bankruptcy of Doman Industries and others? Or maybe it is because the industry representatives from Canada and the U.S. have advanced softwood lumber talks further in five days than the Liberals have in the last three years.

The U.S. is threatening to double the current 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber. Today our government responds by offering Americans Timbits, caribou meat and beer. This comes on the heels of the government's $17 million ad campaign that relied upon Leave it to Beaver nostalgia with slogans like “We grew up together” and “Let's keep a good thing growing”.

Is this the best the Liberals can do for our forest industry? When will this spineless, out of touch government shed its feel good tactics and give our lumber industry free access to U.S. markets?

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. Most of us in the House are parents or grandparents. I am a parent of two teenagers. I know that it is our moral responsibility as lawmakers in the country to protect innocent and vulnerable children from pimps and other sexual predators.

It should be a matter of high priority for us because it will strengthen the foundation of the nation. It will strengthen the institution of the family. Those children who are abused, sexually or otherwise, do not have the opportunity to regret what their future will be, a life suffering from depression and other evils like this.

It will strengthen the institution of the family and, as I have said in the past, stronger families make stronger nations. Therefore it is very important that the fundamental principle or foundation of the country should be based on the protection of our children, who are our future leaders. We need to produce a stronger generation of children rather than a weaker generation, an abused generation. Therefore, I would like to say that as Canadians, as parliamentarians, as lawmakers, it is our responsibility to protect children.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very good idea. I thank the hon. member for raising this issue.

It is vitally important that we do not confuse the physical maturation of children with the psychological maturation of children. Why is it that as a society we feel that children are ill-prepared to drive, drink, vote, marry, drop out of school or even watch violent movies but we feel that they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? This makes no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would put us more in line with other western nations. We know that in Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is at least 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and even the United Kingdom, it is 16. It is time for the Liberals to prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance, to protect our children and society from sexual predators and this heinous crime, that we raise the age from 14 to at least 16, if not 18, to keep up with the international global phenomenon that has taken place in other countries.

Moreover, that would allow us to clean up the Internet in regard to Canada being a haven for sexual predators or a haven for child sex and sexual tourism. I think it is very important that we protect our children by raising the age from 14 to 16 or 18.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-20. I would like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for sharing his time with me.

The bill we are debating is an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act. So far Bill C-20 has introduced very weak and timid steps toward this issue.

A person would be found guilty of a child pornography offence when the material or act in question does not serve the public good or where the risk of harm outweighs any public benefit.

Some of the other changes are proposed to protect people aged 14 to 18. Of course they would focus not on consent, but on whether the relationship is exploitative based on age difference, control exerted, and other circumstances.

Another step is that it would increase penalties for offences that harm children. The maximum penalty for sexual exploitation would double from 5 years to 10 years.

Bill C-20 would make it a crime to secretly observe or visually record a person where privacy is reasonably expected. Distributing a recording on the World Wide Web or elsewhere would also be a crime. Such an offence would carry a maximum jail term of five years.

We know too well that courts never impose maximum penalties, nor do they have the will to do that. Life never means life and 25 years has meant only 7 or 10 years in jail, just as if there is a scale or route under the maximum penalty sentence. For it to be effective there should be a well defined legislated minimum sentence. That would be a deterrent and not a motivation to commit such a heinous crime.

Last March a British Columbia judge cleared John Robin Sharpe of possession charges, concluding that his graphic child sex stories had artistic merit and were protected by freedom of speech. Canadians want their government to close the loophole left when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled two years ago that there were some exceptions to the child pornography law. Child pornography and artistic merit do not mix. The argument that pornography can be excused because it has artistic merit has angered a lot of Canadian parents. The weak Liberal Government of Canada continues to have one of the most liberal pornography laws in the world.

Last summer, a Pollara poll found that 86% of Canadians disagree with the artistic merit defence. They have been calling for the removal of the provision for the artistic merit defence from the child pornography law. We do not permit artistic merit to be a defence when it comes to hate literature. If we do not accept artistic merit in hate literature, why should we accept artistic merit in the child pornography law, which is meant to protect our innocent children, our future?

A major shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to raise the age of consent from 14 years to at least 16, if not 18, for sexual activity between children and adults. I fail to see the rationale for permitting adults to engage in any sexual activity with children.

Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of consent. I am not trying to be politically incorrect here, but I am quoting: From 1892 to 1988, sexual intercourse outside of marriage with females under 14 and for those under 16 and “of previously chaste character” was illegal. The maximum penalty upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a female under 16 was five years' imprisonment.

Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed unlawful intercourse and seduction offences and in their place created new offences called sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, which now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

There is no question that sexual exploitation is real and a serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Reports indicate that increasing numbers of youths are being sexually exploited and that Canada is listed on the Internet as a source for sex with children and youth. It is shameful.

Having the age of consent set at 14 makes it easy for predators to recruit young people into the sex trade without facing repercussions or without initially committing any offence. Once these youths are entrenched in the relationship, they are then convinced or coerced into engaging in illegal activities.

Recruiters consciously choose to form consensual relationships with youths who are over the age of consent but are as young as possible in order to make it easy to gain a hold on them. Raising the age of consent would assist in the prosecution of adults who buy sex from young people because the adult could be charged with sexual assault, and it would not be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money or other considerations.

Raising the age of consent would be more consistent with other western industrialized countries. It would discourage sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message internationally that children in Canada are not available for sex.

In B.C.'s lower mainland, we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. A study there found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working Vancouver's streets. The recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent.

According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help have children who are 14 years old and who are being recruited into the sex trade. The society's argument is that if the police had the ability to pick up the girl or boy, regardless of their consent, and return them to their family or take them to a safe house, then many youth could be saved from entering the sex trade.

If we were to think about a 50 year old man being able to target 14 year old runaways for sex and giving them AIDS or other diseases or even getting them pregnant, we might get a different response. The results of dozens of studies show the effect of adult sexual contact with children. They are at a 21% higher risk of clinical depression. They have a 21% greater chance of suicide. There is a 20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder. There is a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution.

It is a serious risk and a serious challenge and we must take serious action. We suggest that the bill is a timid first step for Canadian children. After months of the Canadian Alliance demanding elimination of the artistic merit defence, the Liberals finally have recognized the danger but have not taken any serious steps.

Children must be protected from abuse at the hands of all adult predators. The age of consent for adult-child sex must be raised from 14 to 16, in addition to having the new categories for exploitative relationships. As well, higher maximum sentences for child pornography and predation will not be effective unless the courts enforce them. I would also like to mention that police and prosecutors still do not have the tools to deal with child pornography cases effectively and efficiently.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very passionate and effective speech by the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

In 1982 when the current Prime Minister was justice minister, he told the Toronto Star :

Children are innocent victims of vicious people. They cannot protect themselves and we have to protect them. I hate the thought of these people abusing people who are too young to realize in what it is they are participating.

After 21 years the situation has gone from bad to worse. There are reports of an increase in the numbers of youth being sexually exploited. Canada is registered on the Internet as an international source for sex with children and youth.

If the Prime Minister felt that way 21 years ago, what has happened since? He is still Prime Minister. The weak Liberal government has done nothing to protect our children. The bottom line is it seems there is no political will from the government. For 10 years or more members of the Canadian Alliance and previously the Reform Party of Canada have been asking the government to get tough on protecting our children against sexual predators.

Does the member agree with me that the weak, arrogant Liberal government lacks the political will to protect our children?

[Carrie's Guardian Angel Law, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-6.

The bill provides for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and makes amendments to other acts.

The stated purpose of the bill is to establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. The centre will be composed of a chief executive officer, a commission and a tribunal, with the commission and tribunal playing the most significant roles in the day to day process of dealing with specific claims.

Specific claims arise from the breach or non-fulfillment of government obligations found in treaties, agreements and statutes.

Interestingly, Bill C-6 has met with opposition from first nations across Canada, including in my home province of British Columbia. The British Columbia Alliance of Tribal Nations representing 23 member first nations feels that Bill C-6 completely fails to meet its stated principles, namely, to establish a process for the resolution of specific claims that is independent, fair and timely.

The amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 1 through 8 would help alleviate these concerns and therefore would have my support.

For example, Motion No. 7, the amendment put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, adds a small measure of accountability to the review process and reflects an amendment passed in committee.

Motion No. 2, if accepted, would give the proposed centre increased independence from government. This clause gives the government the right to hold up the claims process as it decides whether or not to hear a claim. It provides no timelines or final deadlines for the government to provide an answer and provides no mechanism for the commission or the claimant to move the process forward in the event of an extended delay by the government.

When we see how much control Bill C-6 gives the federal government and specifically the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it is little wonder that aboriginal groups are opposed to the legislation.

The title of the bill suggests the newly created body will be independent. Independence is essential to the successful working of the centre. Independence must exist in fact and be perceived to exist by the parties and the public.

Under Bill C-6 however, commission and tribunal members, including the CEO and chief adjudicator, will be appointed by the cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development alone. How can aboriginals have confidence in the centre under these circumstances? Suspicion about partiality, patronage and conflict of interest will plague the centre, destroying its legitimacy in the eyes of first nations and for good reason.

Under the proposed legislation the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is directly involved in the claim process. Once a claim is filed, the commission must provide a copy with supporting documentation to the minister. After preparatory meetings the commission must then suspend proceedings until the minister decides whether or not to accept the claim for negotiation.

Allowing the minister, who is a party himself, to determine the next step in the proceedings essentially takes carriage of proceedings away from the claimant and the centre and places it with the respondent. It is essential that the bill place power within the proposed centre. That is what the centre is there for. As presently constituted, too much power resides in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Motion Nos. 2 and 3 would help accomplish this objective. They would take power away from the government and thereby increase the independence of the proposed centre.

Similarly, clause 32 allows the government to require the claimant to meet an excessive threshold of proof of having used all available mediation mechanisms before allowing the claimant to request a move to the tribunal in the case of an unresolved claim. In other words, it can be used as another stalling mechanism by the government.

Upon the initial introduction of the bill during the first session of this Parliament, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations observed that he looked forward to the legislative process to address the need for important changes to this defective bill.

Besides the obvious lack of independence of the proposed centre, the AFN also found fault with the capped claim limit. Motion No. 6 responds to this criticism. It establishes the guidelines for compensation in a specific claim, including a $7 million cap. However, as a footnote in the legal analysis of Bill C-6, the Assembly of First Nations notes that AFN technicians have been informed by a commission counsel for the Indian Claims Commission that of 120 claims only 3 eventually were settled for less than $7 million. The AFN analysis adds that in the past three years, 8 out of 14 claims paid out by the federal government were for amounts above $7 million. The government should be allowing much more flexibility regarding the claim values it allows the centre to consider. In committee, we, the Canadian Alliance members, proposed a cap of $25 million but the government voted against that idea.

Motion No. 8 seeks to amend Bill C-6 by deleting clause 77, which gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations. The Canadian Alliance objects to the government's practice of passing incomplete, vague legislation, bills that need to be fleshed out by the government after the bill has been passed in the House, fleshed out somewhere other than in Parliament, where there are less eyes watching and where it is protected from much of the scrutiny and the accountability process of Parliament. This is simply undemocratic and is another example of the current government's hostility to the principles of accountability and transparency. This is at least one reason why the Liberal government is an elected dictatorship. It is almost criminal, by all standards.

Bill C-6 would create a process that is even worse than the current historically flawed process, which has over 500 claims sitting in its backlog awaiting the minister's decision on whether or not they are acceptable for negotiation. In this backlog, 48% of the specific claims are from the first nations in British Columbia, the most from any region in Canada. First nations in B.C. have the most to gain from the establishment of a truly independent, fair and timely process for the settlement of specific claims, but they also have the most to lose if the bill before us is passed without amendment.

Bill C-6 would institutionalize the federal government's conflict of interest in judging claims against itself and would authorize and reward the Minister of Indian Affairs for indefinite delays in deciding whether or not to accept a specific claim for negotiations.

The Canadian Alliance strongly supports the speedy resolution of claims, whereas Bill C-6 would not speed up the resolution of claims, particularly larger and more costly claims.

The new claims resolution centre would not be independent. All adjudicators and commissioners would be appointed by the government for patronage purposes. Who is standing up for the first nations? Who is standing up for the taxpayers in this process? A system that avoids accountability for government stonewalling and discourages the use of alternative dispute mechanisms over more costly court claims is a waste of taxpayers' money. Who is standing up for taxpayers? No one from that side of the government.

This new institution would not be transparent. Government members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources voted against all amendments that would require the government to declare openly its reasons for deciding against a claim or for holding up this process.

To summarize, Bill C-6 would not ensure a faster claims resolution process. No timelines are mentioned in this process. In fact, there would be numerous opportunities for the government to delay and stonewall. The bill needs major amendments. Canadian Alliance amendments will advance justice, speed up the claims resolution process, reduce conflict of interest, increase organizational independence and save taxpayers' dollars.

Therefore, since this arrogant, weak and incompetent Liberal government does not accept the Canadian Alliance amendments, I have no choice but to oppose Bill C-6 as tabled. In addition, the Alliance of Tribal Nations asks that I oppose this legislation vigorously. Therefore, I and my colleagues will oppose this legislation if it is not amended.