Gurmant Grewal

[Organized Crime, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are still no charges. The gang unit in Vancouver is vastly outnumbered by the criminals it is trying to catch. It is a small, specialized team of eight up against about 1,500 full time gangsters. Those are not very good odds.

Witnesses and people with information are reluctant to go to the police because they are terrified. They have no confidence in the system.

Why does the Solicitor General not lead and coordinate the three levels of government in tackling organized crime?

[Organized Crime, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the past 10 years nearly 70 young members of the Indo-Canadian community in B.C. have died as a result of drug and gang violence. Most of those murders are unsolved.

The problem is so serious that almost every Indo-Canadian family in B.C. knows someone who has been a victim of violence. The public knows and the media report who killed who but still no charges are laid.

When will this weak Liberal government take the Vancouver gang wars seriously and give the police the resources they need to do their job?

[Points of Order, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order and I seek your advice on a serious issue.

A constituent of mine and his wife applied for Canadian passports. Instead of receiving two passports they received three. One passport belongs to some unknown individual. National security is important. A Canadian passport is an important document, particularly after the Auditor General's report on fraud and abuse of social insurance cards.

My constituent had no faith in the passport system so he came to my office and dropped off this passport. I do not know what to do with it. I would like to seek your advice--

[Justice, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, under the watch of the federal Liberal government, crime in Surrey has reached a five year high with nearly 50,000 criminal code offences.

Surrey has high auto theft, marijuana grow-ups, assault, break and enter, arson and property damage cases.

Throughout the lower mainland, drugs, gangs, prostitution and other organized crime is rampant.

Among Indo-Canadians alone, 70 youths have been murdered since 1995. The Surrey RCMP is understaffed and has heavy caseloads, yet the Liberal government has done nothing to help.

The Canadian Alliance believes that the rights of victims of crime must take precedence over those of criminals. We believe in truth in sentencing and will ensure that sentences handed down are actually served. Parole should be harder to earn and easier to lose, and multiple convictions should draw consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. There should be deterrence to commit crime, not motivation.

When will this weak Liberal government subscribe to these beliefs and act so that the people of Surrey will feel secure on their streets?

[Committees of the House, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with all parties and I request the unanimous consent of the House to move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations presented to the House on Thursday, November 21 be concurred in.

[Committees of the House, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Privilege, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House, which I believe you will get because we have had discussions with all parties, to revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of presenting the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague across the way, particularly his comments on the disallowance procedure for the scrutiny of regulations committee which is a joint committee of the House and Senate. I wish to congratulate the member on his election as vice-chair of that committee today.

As we debate the modernization of Parliament we know that it is an integral part of democratic reform. Another important component is regulatory reform which has been ignored for too long. Regulatory reform is important because 80% of the law that we see in this country is generally made through the back door. I am speaking of regulations and statutory instruments. Only 20% of the law is debated in this chamber. Members passionately debate and vote on legislation, and deal with those issues differently. However the 80% component is completely ignored or at least goes through improper scrutiny.

I would like to ask my colleague if he feels that the issue of regulatory reform has been ignored.

After hearing from various organizations and Canadians we know there has been an overlapping of regulations in Canada between various departments and different levels of government. There is duplication and many regulations are redundant. We need to separate those regulations into good, bad and ugly and get rid of those that are not needed anymore. Maybe there is a need for a sunset clause in some regulations. Maybe there is a need to harmonize the regulatory process or the regulations between different levels of government. Similarly, there is a need to set up an inter-provincial standardization commission whereby we could standardize various regulatory processes between different provinces.

There are many other things: regulatory impact analysis; cost benefit analysis; setting up input from the public and the media on the regulatory process; regulations sent to committees; and a regulatory flexibility act similar to the one in the U.S. These are things that need to be addressed.

Since the member has a lot of experience on this committee, would he recommend that we study regulatory reform in that committee? Would he urge the government to take some concrete action on regulatory reform?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the issue of modernizing Parliament.

My hon. colleague, the deputy leader of our party, very eloquently gave some of the practical recommendations for modernizing Parliament. I would like to emphasize more the need for parliamentary modernization.

The objective of modernization must be to better serve democracy in Canada. The test of its success will be whether it increases the esteem of the public for their Parliament. Democracy is more than just marking an x on a ballot every four or five years. It is time Parliament reflects that. No wonder voter turnout in federal elections is falling.

Free and fair elections provide an incentive for political leaders to govern more effectively in the public interest, but democratic electoral competition does not ensure true democracy. It requires reform to deepen, strengthen and consolidate democracy to build a rule of law and a culture of governance in which public resources are used for the public good.

A system of effective checks and balances, with an independent judiciary and a network of counter corruption, audit, ethics and other oversight agencies and institutions, can deter abuse of power.

Corrupt, wasteful, abusive, incompetent governance undermines basic economic development. Where governance is endemically bad, leaders do not use public resources effectively. Nor is the private growth sector allowed to prosper smoothly and efficiently.

Where democracy is restricted, governance is poor, more corrupt, wasteful, incompetent and opens the country to recurrent crises. Political corruption scandals threaten to erode public faith in democracy and thereby destabilize the entire system. Corruption aggravates social conflict by raising the premium on control of the state and rendering politics a more desperate, zero sum struggle for control of economic opportunity. An important ingredient in all democracies is the political will of the nation's leaders to improve the quality of governance.

For all these reasons, it is necessary to focus efforts on the promotion and development of democratic structures and institutions and a culture of democracy and the development of an environment conducive to democracy and consolidation of democratic institutions.

Modernization of Parliament should seek to enhance its status so that it is seen as a robust and effective part of the process of decision making by government.

Canadian Parliament is a rubber stamp for the government. The legislature is now dominated by strict party discipline, reducing government members to little more than a cheering section.

We need to encourage results oriented dialogue in this chamber. As things now stand, the purpose of debate is defeated. Members debate with a predetermined, closed mindset and are not willing to listen to arguments. MPs can talk all they want but nothing really changes because an elite tightly controls everything, and there are never free votes on issues most important to the constituents.

Take note debates take place after the government has made decisions on those important issues.

Debates are restricted in Parliament continuously. Closure has been invoked even more times than during the past Mulroney government. I think it has been 78 times that debates have been restricted in this chamber. Attendance in debates is low, as we see now. It is shameful when quorum is called, which is already set very low. It is time to bring increased meaning to everyday proceedings of the House of Commons.

We know that committees are not accountable. They are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office. Government members who fail to toe party lines are disciplined. We know so many changes in this place need to be made, in committees and in other places.

One important element is institutions in government. The commissioners for privacy, access to information, ethics, the Auditor General, ombudsman, et cetera should report to Parliament in a meaningful way.

Their reports should be given more importance. For example, as a follow up to the recommendations of the Auditor General, various departments and agencies should seriously address the concerns and implement those changes. The failures, mismanagement, waste and boondoggles should not be allowed to continue.

Question period is a chance for the public, through the opposition members, to seek information from the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers of government and hold them accountable for their decisions and management of the affairs of the nation. However, as the name suggests, it is question period, not question and answer period. What the opposition members hear from the government in just 35 seconds is only sound bites or sometimes some announcements, but not the real answers to the issues that are important to the nation.

We need to increase access to cabinet ministers so that they can be held accountable. They can answer the questions on issues.

Speaking of question period, I have proposed a motion in the House to change the name of question period to question and answer period so that it can be a meaningful event, not just a media circus whereby the members try to hype their files, or make announcements or sound bites.

The late show or adjournment proceedings should be made more meaningful. Government members should avail themselves of the opportunity to provide supplementary indepth answers. This could be a second question period. The idea would be to restore accountability and transparency in government.

Many meaningful changes need to be made in this place to make real democracy take place in Canada.

When we go abroad we talk about good governance, democracy, human rights and those kinds of things, but at home we need to restore democracy and give it a real chance.

I have many recommendations about committees and so on, but I think I will move to a few other things, like private members' business.

Every member of the House works hard on private members' motions and bills. I have tabled many motions and bills in the House like other members, but nothing meaningful is accomplished because the process is not working.

Private members' business is just like a pacifier to a baby. The baby keeps sucking at it but nothing meaningful comes of it. We keep working hard at our private members' bills and motions, but very rarely do they become meaningful law in this country. What is the use of that process? We need to make significant changes to it.

The subcommittee, which is chaired by the government, is partisan in nature and unfair in the selection of votable items.

One inherent problem with parliamentary democracy is that the government is usually formed by the party which has a majority in Parliament, so naturally there is a bias. That bias is reflected in committees, which should not be the case. Committees should not reflect that bias and Parliament should not act in that fashion.

The Senate, which has the power to delay and modify legislation, is far from a chamber of sober second thought. The Senate is nothing more than a group of partisan, patronage appointees. We need to modify that.

Another issue is regulatory reform. When we talk about democratic reforms, parliamentary reform is an integral part of democratic reforms and regulatory reform is an integral part of parliamentary reform.

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations does not have enough power and resources to scrutinize regulations. As we know, 80% of the law in this country is made by regulation but only 20% of it is debated in this chamber. The standing committees should be given the opportunity.

We need to do a lot of work on regulatory reform. We need to harmonize regulations. We need to make regulatory impact statements and the regulatory process should be more meaningful. I am sure that I will talk about regulatory reform in my private member's bill probably in the next month or so.

With these comments, I would like to urge all members to make democracy practical and effective so it can be reflected in this chamber and we can hold this chamber in high esteem.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and many disabled Canadians to participate in the debate on the disability tax credit motion by the NDP.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his eloquent remarks and for allowing me to share my time with him.

We are talking about the most vulnerable people in Canadian society. One hundred and six thousand disabled Canadians will be denied the modest tax credit benefits and will have to reapply to be eligible. Forty per cent of Canadians with disabilities live in poverty and one-third are unemployed. The Liberal government only knows how to reward its friends, those who contribute to the Liberal Party's coffers, or to give out corporate welfare.

We already know the dismal record of the Liberal government when it comes to compassion and caring of Canadians. The government denied compensation to hepatitis C victims. We all know that. Single parents or stay at home parents providing care to their children had been discriminated against for tax benefits until the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, forced the government to take action. We know all that. As responsible Canadians we must stand up and fight for people who cannot, because of circumstances beyond their control, fight for themselves.

Under the proposed amendment, this arrogant, weak and heartless Liberal government has narrowly defined the ability to eat and dress oneself as the physical act of putting food in one's mouth and an arm through one's sleeve. However, as critics have already pointed out, the proposed tightening of the rules excludes individuals who might be able to get their spoons up but cannot get their dish to the table.

The disability tax credit was established during the second world war to recognize the fact that individuals with severe and prolonged impairments often faced additional non-discretionary expenses for basic daily living that reduce their ability to pay tax. The DTC is a $6,180 credit to provide support to those with severe and prolonged mental and physical disabilities who have marked restrictions in performing basic daily living activities.

In a case involving an individual who suffered from an intestinal disease, the Tax Court of Canada decided that because he had to spend a significant amount of time each day in identifying, producing and cooking food he could digest, he met the “inordinate amount of time” test. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In response the Department of Finance has announced its decision to amend the Income Tax Act so that individuals will not be eligible for the DTC merely on the basis of a dietary restriction that results in an extraordinary amount of time being spent on choosing, shopping for, preparing or cooking food. Specifically, the amendment proposes that the expression “feeding oneself” be defined for DTC purposes to mean the act of putting food in the mouth or swallowing that food. The proposed legislative amendments apply in the current 2002 tax year.

About 200,000 Canadians claim the disability tax credit. In total the credit provides about $390 million in tax assistance. DTC's rules should be clear and fair across the board and fraud should be vigorously pursued.

CCRA form T2201 is problematic. That is where the problem is. The guidelines pertaining to the application's questions are very restrictive and result in denying support to many legitimate applicants.

The Department of Finance evaluated the DTC in 1991 and stated that under an administrative system in which eligibility was determined and certified by a family physician depended on the development and communication of guidelines which illustrated the intended application of the definition. When the CCRA simplified the form in 1996, it failed to capture the true nature of many disabilities.

After three months of hearings, the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities on March 21 tabled in the House a report, “Getting it Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit”. It stated that the current practices in administering the DTC were “grossly inadequate”. The disability community supported the recommendations in principle.

On August 21, the Department of Finance responded formally to the report. Less than 4 of the report's 21 pages actually addressed the subcommittee's report.

The draft T2201 form, which was distributed by the CCRA on August 28, does not reflect the spirit and the objectives of the Income Tax Act. It is too restrictive and will continue to unjustly deny the tax credit.

On August 30, the Department of Finance aggravated an already sensitive matter by proposing amendments to further restrict access to the tax credit because of a Federal Court of Appeal decision which ruled in favour of the appellant. This was Villani v. the Attorney General of Canada 2001 case.

The Department of Finance and its administrative arm in the CCRA have taken the opposing position and have applied the most restrictive interpretation possible to the language of the act. The Liberal chair of the subcommittee is extraordinarily disappointed.

It is alarming that the CCRA is narrowing the eligibility for the credit. It is not consistent with the Canadian values of fairness and equality. It is a disturbing message to all Canadians by discouraging them from seeking justice in our court system.

Philip Gudger, who has only one leg, was told by taxation officials that he no longer was considered disabled. After going through all the hoops, he has won an appeal and is entitled to the credit. We will be hearing a lot of horror stories. Decisions made in the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada must be considered by Parliament.

The DTC is intended to reduce taxable income for people who have severe and prolonged mental or physical impairments, causing them to be markedly restricted in the basic activities of daily living. Yes, the Department of Finance must make tough choices to keep our budget in balance, but the Liberal finance minister is going about it in the wrong way when he removes resources from those most in need.

The government must withdraw the proposed amendments to the disability tax credit and act on the unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities which call for fairness and effective consultation before any changes to the Income Tax Act are made in regard to Canadians with disabilities. The decision by the Department of Finance ignores all the hard work by the government's own parliamentary committee. This is an affront to democracy.

The subcommittee's report tabled earlier this year recommended a complete overhaul of the DTC program but the government chose to ignore that.

Canadians with disabilities deserve to have their concerns addressed with the same consideration, if not more, than would be afforded to any population other group. This is not a question of seeking special benefits for special interests. Instead, it is seeking an effective and efficient process for providing a much needed tax credit to severely disabled Canadians. The failure to do so subverts the hard work of the parliamentary committee and ignores it.

I am appalled at our skewed tax laws that allow a businessman to write off 50% of a business lunch, while disabled people are only allowed to write off less than 20% on the purchase of wheelchairs.

An all party parliamentary committee came up with unanimous recommendations which the government should abide by. This would ease the burden on persons with disabilities in claiming DTC.

When will this weak, arrogant Liberal government do the right thing, implement the recommendations and help rather than hurt disabled people in Canada?