Gurmant Grewal

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

That is wrong. That is not true.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the second hour of debate on Bill C-209. The purpose of the bill is to allow tax reductions for users of public transportation services in Canada.

I begin my remarks in support of the bill by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, on her hard work in bringing the matter before the House. It is a notable effort to protect our environment. People where I come from highly appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

It is a very simple bill. It proposes to enable Canadians when filling out their income tax returns to subtract a percentage of the money they pay for public transport from the amount they owe in taxes.

In 1999 the House of Commons, by a vote of 240 to 25, adopted a motion asking the weak Liberal government to review the issue of tax exemptions for users of public transportation. However the Liberals have done absolutely nothing about it since passing the motion.

In the lower mainland of British Columbia where I come from, transportation is a very serious problem. The city of Surrey is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada and traffic congestion is a very real concern for the people there. Transportation is a very serious issue for all the population of British Columbia's lower mainland.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District is planning to extend the TransLink service deeper into our lower mainland to connect commuters to downtown Vancouver. In fact, construction is going on. However there is no federal government support to encourage this type of extension which would take traffic off our already congested highways and streets.

To assist in paying for the infrastructure extension, the Greater Vancouver Regional District was planning to levy a vehicle tax on users.

Members can imagine how annoying it was. It was a very irritating idea. People were very upset about a levy on their vehicles. There was a huge public outcry for even suggesting that another tax must be paid by transit link commuters. I am surprised that this public outrage has not made any impact on the Liberal government in Ottawa. From its point of view, all the money it collects from gasoline taxes goes to general revenues. The government does not have the courtesy to put money where its mouth is, where there is a high demand, a high need, in our infrastructure development and public transportation.

Last November during the election the finance minister flew in a helicopter over the city of Surrey. He wanted to get a tour of the city. Probably he saw there was not enough support for him and his party in that area, so he chose to tour the city by helicopter. He admitted to the media that he was not aware of the transportation needs of this area. Talk about alienation. I do not want to elaborate on that, but he is a federal cabinet minister and claims he was not aware of the transportation concerns of British Columbians living on the lower mainland.

I challenge the finance minister on what he saw at that time. He is aware of the needs of transportation in that region. What has he done so far or what is he planning to do in due course? I am asking today: what is he prepared to do about the problems he saw during his trip?

When we compare the tax on gasoline with the tax in the United States of America, we see that 95% of the revenue in the United States is spent on roads, on highways and, most important, on public transportation. In contrast, in Canada something like only 3.5% of the revenue from gasoline taxes is invested in roads, highways or public transportation. On one side, south of the border, it is 95% and here at home in Canada it is just 3.5%. There is a big divergence or gap in the way that revenue is invested in transportation and so on.

This is a very good motion. At least it encourages commuters to use public transportation. Again, though, it is the responsibility of all levels of government to make sure that infrastructure development is there and that the public transportation system is there when the public needs it.

There are many benefits of adopting this motion, particularly in terms of pollution control, health and the environment. I will give some statistics on what is happening in Canada with respect to these three things I mentioned. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians consider that air pollution affects their health and 16,000 Canadians die prematurely every year because of the poor air quality. Between 1980 and 1990 the number of children hospitalized because of asthma increased by 23%. Health costs resulting from automobile use in Canada reportedly total over $1 billion a year. Motor vehicles are the principal source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 32% of the total amount. A single bus can carry as many passengers as 40 or 50 cars. It is equivalent to that. Its emission percentages per kilometre are only one-quarter of those of cars and other vehicles.

This bill is an ideal tool for meeting our Kyoto commitments. We promised that by the year 2010 our emissions would be 6% lower than 1990 levels, but if the current situation continues Canada will actually exceed those levels by 35%. Rather than a decrease of 6%, experts estimate an increase of 35%. That is very alarming.

There are certain economic benefits. Some 80% of people who travel to work are entitled to a subsidized parking space, while very few workers receive any benefit for using public transportation. When workers do receive such benefits they are required to pay taxes on them whereas most people who are entitled to a subsidized parking space pay no taxes on that benefit. This situation greatly discourages the use of public transportation.

Public transportation provides access to urban centres, thus promoting the development and economic growth of those centres and communities. The bill would increase the use of public transportation services. In the United States, for example, tax free bus passes led to a 25% increase in the number of public transportation users.

In the U.S. there is a $500 billion initiative to develop the transportation infrastructure during the next five years. I ask this weak Liberal government what its plan is. How much money does it want to put into this big investment area? Canada is the only G-8 country that does not have a national transportation infrastructure program. The Liberals have no plans to implement one. Bill C-209 offers one solution. I urge the Liberal government to stop resting on its laurels and do something to provide incentives to promote the use of public transportation in Canada.

I will also very quickly highlight the fact that I had a meeting with the disgruntled B.C. public transportation employees who are on strike. Of the three levels of organizational structure, they did not know who their bosses were. There is no responsibility at any level of public transportation organizational structure. I urge the federal government to show leadership and address the issue.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

Before I begin I would like to thank the 150 witnesses, a broad spectrum, who appeared before the committee. They have given us insights into the practical life of dealing with immigrants and into the various angles or perspectives from which they looked at the immigration process.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the members, the staff and the researchers of the committee. Appreciation is also due to the chair of the committee, who has been very fair so far. I guess he would have been more fair if he had accepted all 30 amendments put forward by the official opposition, but I appreciate the work done by all the members as well as the co-operation that existed. The process was very productive and positive and really it was fun to work with the committee.

However, I am really disappointed that the output is not proportional to the input in the committee. Everyone worked hard, but the outcome could have been much better. I am a little disappointed with the efficiency ratio of output versus input in the committee.

While we are on thanks, I would also like to thank the chief critic for the official opposition of Canada, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, who really worked very hard on the committee. He put forward over 30 amendments. All those amendments were to the point. They were very serious and non-partisan amendments and I regret that most of them were not accepted by this weak Liberal government.

While the bill has much needed changes with respect to immigration to Canada, which I acknowledge, it also has serious flaws. I will be talking about those flaws at third reading of the bill if I get the opportunity. For the time being I will say that while the legislation may be well intended its outcome may not serve its stated purpose.

Immigration to Canada should be simple. It is a matter of common sense. Either the criteria to enter met or are not. When legislators are working hard on the bill they need to use common sense and put various aspects of the bill in perspective.

The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation will ultimately cause more trouble than the legislation it purports to replace. Bill C-11 will not deliver what it intends to deliver without proper accountability and management in place.

The minister has been talking about front door and back door scenarios. Let me remind the House, although I am sure members who have been here for a long time will remember, that when I was first elected in 1997 I gave an analogy in my first speech on immigration that the immigration system in Canada was just like a home.

When a person knocks on the door or rings the doorbell the owner of the house has the opportunity to open the door and invite or welcome the person into the home. Sometimes the person is offered tea or coffee, a conversation may take place, and he or she becomes a guest.

On the contrary, it is surprising if the homeowner wakes up one morning and finds a stranger sitting on the couch in the living room having a cup of coffee. Perhaps the stranger discovered that the back door was opened, entered the house while the owner was asleep and sat on the couch.

I remind the House that with respect to our immigration process we have to open our front door so that legitimate immigrants similar to the ones who built the country can enter Canada through the front door and be productive. We should welcome them. We should also welcome legitimate refugees who come to Canada through the front door.

At the same time we must close the back door because we do not know who is entering through it. It could be a criminal, a bogus refugee, or anyone who is not wanted in the country.

In my speech in 1997 I urged the then immigration minister to open the front door and monitor them but to close the back door and plug the loopholes.

The minister borrowed my analogy and repeatedly made references to the front door and the back door. However she installed a revolving door between the front and back doors and prospective immigrants are caught in it for a long time because the system is plugged. The plumbing system in the immigration system is comparatively clogged.

There are many instances of appeal after appeal, just like someone peeling an onion one layer at a time. Sometimes people are caught in the system for eight, nine or ten years. I have given a list of 40 of my constituents to the minister who have been caught in that revolving door for 10 years or so. I am a little disappointed. To use my analogy, the minister should eliminate the revolving door, close the back door and open the front door.

There are four motions in this grouping. I will deal with Motion No. 4 first. It is an amendment to the French version. It is technical in nature. It is a housekeeping type of amendment. I do not have any problem supporting it.

Motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with the right of entry of a permanent resident and reads as follows:

That Bill C-11, in clause 19, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 11 with the following:

“resident or a protected person to enter Canada if satisfied following”

In her amendment the words protected person and resident are added. Those who are under Canadian protection are refugees. They should be afforded the full extent of our protection. It should not be limited to those with status only.

When talking about refugees, Bill C-11 is a direct attack on legitimate refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our share of genuine refugees but subclause 3(2)(d) states that Canada is:

—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise undesirable person entering Canada who claims to be a refugee would be under Canadian protection from extradition to another country if there is reason to believe they would be under a threat of harm.

Motion No. 3 would improve the effectiveness of the bill. Our party will support the amendment.

The definition of refugee in the bill needs further clarification. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We will do our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months and years. The bill also gives refugees, as well as refugee applicants, full charter protection.

Motion No. 2, also in the name of the hon. member for Laval Centre, takes away the regulation making authority by order in council. Regulations should be made in committee. I was the co-chair of the standing committee on scrutiny of regulations. I can say that the government is in the habit of governing through the back door and not by debating regulations in the House.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to make our final statement in opposition to the youth criminal justice system, which the Liberals are about to force upon our nation. This is third reading of the bill and the last opportunity we have to try to force the government to change it.

I want to take a moment to appreciate the hard work done by all my colleagues, first in the Reform Party then in the Canadian Alliance, particularly my neighbour and my friend, the hon. member for Surrey North, who has worked quite hard on the legislation.

The debate provides this side of the House with the chance to summarize the great failing of the justice minister in her attempt to change the Young Offenders Act. Speech after speech in the House, witness after witness in the committee, bill after bill in the House, the government has not listened to what Canadians want in terms of addressing youth crime. In all regions of the country there is opposition to many aspects of the bill. However the justice minister will not listen nor address these concerns, despite the fact she stated in the House that her top priority was to deal with the bill.

Experts with a wide range of specialties were generous with the government in terms of providing testimony, recommendations and amendments, but still the weak, arrogant Liberal government did not listen to them. The government continues to reintroduce the bill, but it has failed to address the important issues facing this nation.

We are now facing closure on debate on the bill. The government wants to hastily pass a bill which will not work. Even the senators are upset because they will not get enough time to deal with the bill.

When the arrogant, weak Liberal government passes the legislation, the complexity and loopholes will cause horrendous delays and costs to our youth criminal justice process. Legal bills will be phenomenal.

The government has not been open to change on any aspect of the legislation and has refused to accept amendments. Oppositions parties, except the Bloc, have presented meaningful and significant amendments to this bill, but the government failed to address them.

I can say so many things about what the government missed in the bill, but my time is limited. However I will say that the federal government did not consult Canadians about it. It refused to listen to Canadians. It refused to have extensive consultations with various provinces prior to bringing forth these new procedures. The provinces will be tasked to administer the legal nightmare, but the federal government does not seem to care.

In conclusion, using closure to stop debate to move the bill through, clearly shows that this arrogant, weak Liberal government does not care about the youth criminal justice system in the country. Protection of the public and victims take second fiddle in the government's regime.

As I have said, if this legislation passes, its complexity and its loopholes will cause serious and horrendous problems with extremely high costs to the Canadian society.

As a parliamentarian I am ashamed to stand in the House and tell the government, which does not listen, that the bill will fail because it does not address the real issues.

[Multiculturalism, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that person needs help anyway. This morning the minister told the heritage committee that her department policy is to not share daily press clippings with the opposition critics.

Canadian taxpayers are paying for this service. This is the only department that has an official policy not to provide press clippings. Why is it denying the opposition critics this information? Why the secrecy?

[Multiculturalism, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada knows that the multicultural minister has slurred communities. Today at the heritage committee she insisted that she did not need cultural sensitivity training, even though she promoted this training for everyone else.

Will the Prime Minister demand that his junior minister receive her own training?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-7.

The Liberal government appears to have only reintroduced its previous legislation, Bill C-68 and Bill C-3. In Bill C-7, the name of the bill was changed for window dressing but the problems remain. On top of that, using closure to stop debate and move the bill through clearly shows the government does not care and lacks the political will to have effective legislation in the youth criminal justice act.

I would like to ask if this is what happens to the top priority of the justice minister. It is shameful. The amendment we are currently debating, put forth by the fifth party in the House, calls for a requirement to divulge the identity of a young offender to any professional or other person engaged in the supervision or care of a young person. This requirement to make known the identity and record of a young offender falls on the shoulders of the provincial director, a youth worker, the attorney general, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the provision of services to young people.

This amendment kicks in if such disclosure of this information is necessary, and the bill says it is necessary to ensure that the young person complies with orders under the act, to ensure the safety of staff, students and other persons, and to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person.

This amendment is reasonable. It is the least of what this side of the House is asking of the government. It is a shame the Liberals are stuck with their heads buried in the sand, refusing to allow even basic amendments to their bill even though they have introduced or accepted 182 amendments, 180 of which are just technical in nature, which shows that when they drafted the bill it was poorly drafted from just a technical point of view as well.

The amendment we are debating today is what the Canadian Alliance asked for at committee stage of the bill. People in our society such as teachers, counsellors, camp counsellors, volunteers, sports coaches, supervisors at religious events and many others need to know that there is a young person in their midst who is capable of violent behaviour.

It is with regret that I watched the infamous video clips on BCTV when a student in a school badly beat his schoolmate while other kids watched. Someone from the group secretly videotaped it. I saw in yesterday's or today's news that this aggressor has joined boxing to let off steam. I believe that Canadians want such aggressive behaviour or the offenders in those cases identified, in this case to the coach and to other officials who are responsible for management and supervision of other youths in that group.

The refusal of the government to accept an amendment that would notify people in supervisory roles about the presence of a young offender in their midst is typical of the way the government has handled the bill.

After months of review and after hearing so many experts on all aspects of youth justice systems, the only changes the government has agreed to make are technical amendments proposed by the government to correct the technical errors of Bill C-3, the predecessor to Bill C-7. The government has not been open to changing any aspect of its legislation.

All of the opposition parties except the Bloc presented substantial amendments to Bill C-3. Those amendments did not receive debate in parliament. What a shame that we are not debating those amendments here. They were not accepted in the committee. They do not appear to have been considered by the government at all.

The Minister of Justice has tried this legislation three times and three times she has struck out. The Canadian Alliance, through its former version, the Reform Party, and the justice committee first endorsed alternative measures for first time non-violent offenders. The minister has once again failed to restrict this form of conditional sentencing. It is open to repeat offenders and it is open to violent offenders.

The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may be imposed is severely restrictive. The list includes murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious violent offences.

In Bill C-7 the minister has further weakened the legislation by limiting presumptive offence procedure even more. Through clause 61 any province may decide that only 15 year old or 16 year old offenders who commit offences such as murder could be transferred to adult court, while 10 year olds and 11 year olds would still not be held criminally responsible for their crimes. There is a free ride.

The legislation would create a patchwork or checkerboard system of youth justice as many of its provisions permit the provinces undue discretion in deciding whether to seek adult sentencing, in publication of names and in access to records, to name just a few.

The legislation provides some movement toward victims' rights but even those are not ensured and are still woefully inadequate.

The provinces will be tasked to administer this legal nightmare but the federal government does not seem to care. This weak Liberal government, which is so arrogant, which lacks vision, which lacks backbone, does not care. The Liberals have not been open to a serious discussion of the proposals in their youth justice law.

The Liberals have promised $206 million over the first three years for the implementation of the bill, but that will not even come close to meeting their responsibility of providing 50% of the funding for youth justice. The Liberals have allowed federal funding to slip to about 20%. The provinces have to carry the can financially for these proposals, the costs of which will rise dramatically through legal argument and procedure.

Initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has made it even weaker, likely to appease the Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois.

For instance, the presumptive offence provision that moves youth 14 years of age and older automatically to adult court for murder et cetera, now permits the provinces, that is, Quebec, to raise the age to restrict the transfer to only 15 year old and 16 year old offenders. Age of application remains at 12 years to 18 years, and there are still restrictions on naming violent offenders.

The bill still has an emphasis on attempting to understand the circumstances underlying criminal behaviour and on rehabilitation and reintegration. The protection of the public plays second fiddle. Denunciation and deterrence seem to be foreign words to the government.

If the legislation passes, the complexities and loopholes would cause horrendous delays and costs to our youth criminal justice process. Legal bills would be phenomenal. The government should understand that deterrence should not be a motivation to commit a crime. The amendment, if accepted, would provide for deterrence. It would also provide an opportunity to develop solutions for a safer environment.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am pleased to participate in the supply day motion of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition of Canada.

Last year I asked to ride along with Vancouver police to experience first hand the illicit drug infested area of east Vancouver. I did this for a few hours one night before I could not take it any more and returned home. What I saw was an appalling and shockingly dreadful experience of life.

Many young and old people were injecting drugs in back alleys which were littered with needles and condoms. Dirty hotels and dormitories looked extremely unhygienic and were full of drug addicts sitting or lying on the floor.

So-called refugees around 20 years of age, mostly from Honduras, were selling cocaine and heroin. Almost all of them had about $200 in their wallets in assorted denominations, were carrying refugee ID cards and had business cards for the same lawyer. They wore jewellery and designer clothing and had stereo Walkmans.

When they spotted the police in civilian clothes and cars approaching them they blew whistles to warn their colleagues. As soon as the police stopped them they stuck out their tongues, spread their arms and hands, and made themselves ready for inspection.

Some attempted to swallow drugs they had wrapped in plastic. Many tried to hop on the skytrain to escape and sell drugs elsewhere. Their suppliers were hiding in nearby restaurants. In the area where illicit drugs are sold there are pawn shops to make it convenient for drug addicts to sell stolen items such as TVs, stereos, computers, et cetera. Restaurants, back alleys and other facilities in the area are like one stop shopping centres for drug addicts.

The government and the community have completely neglected the issue. What I saw in Vancouver was the rule of the jungle. All three levels of government have talked and studied too much. They are all talk and no action. They have no effective plans. The future for those people looks bleak, and that is a pity. It is certainly not the Canada I dreamed of before immigrating here.

I also visited the port of Vancouver where there is no effective control of drug imports. They are not even minimized, let alone stopped. Less than 3% of cargo containers arriving at the port are examined. Of those that are, many are found to contain drugs. The government disbanded the Vancouver port police. It should have strengthened and supported them by co-ordinating their activities with the coast guard and other law enforcement agencies. Instead it abandoned them.

It is no wonder the lower mainland of B.C. has the highest needle exchange rate in North America. Our law enforcement agencies are stripped of resources to fight crime and illicit drugs. Our laws have no teeth. The government has no vision, no plans, no priorities and no focus. Illicit drugs are even available in government controlled prisons where criminals are supposed to be punished and not entertained.

I have visited schools in my riding. The students tell me they can purchase drugs faster than they can have pizza delivered. In a 1999 survey, 53% of students said cannabis was easily or very easily available. That is almost double the 28% recorded in 1981. Some 36% of students in 1999 said someone had tried in the last year to sell them drugs, while 32% said they had observed someone selling drugs in school.

It is no wonder the Marijuana Party received 3.5% of the votes in last night's B.C. election. About 100,000 people in B.C. supported the Marijuana Party. That tells us a great deal. Marijuana growing operations can be found on every third block or so. These grow-ops are a huge money making operation. Marijuana is traded pound for pound with heroin south of the border.

Motorcycle gangs are expanding their operations. Other organized criminals are thriving. They have excellent houses, cars, boats, planes, cutting edge technology, equipment and appliances. The government gives them passports. Instead of spending time in prison they go on cruises and exotic vacations, things the ordinary taxpaying citizen finds it very difficult to do.

Proceeds of crime are not confiscated from drug dealers and organized criminals because we have no effective laws with teeth. While money is the motivation, the lack of tough penalties is no deterrent.

I had an opportunity to visit a couple of harm reduction clinics in Surrey that are professionally managed by Dr. Anna-Marie Maguire. I was disappointed to see a large number of patients there but was encouraged to hear their success stories. One patient told me he had been on drugs 15 years and had never been home to see his family. He said he was completely changed after receiving treatment and had met with his daughter for the first time in 15 years. He had tears of regret and joy in his eyes when he told me the story.

Another individual had been on drugs for many years and had stolen car stereos and women's purses to finance an expensive drug habit. He also repented and was a completely changed individual.

To my surprise, the city of Surrey was reluctant to renew the clinics' operating licences. I noticed no support for the clinics from the community or from any level of government. I understand that there may be problems. However there must be a solution as well. The seriousness of the issue should not be ignored.

A head start program would help the early detection of children susceptible to drug and alcohol abuse and other anti-social behaviour patterns. A head start program could offer more effective treatment. Although a motion was unanimously passed in the House I have seen no action from the Liberal government. It lacks vision and political will.

More resources should be allocated to detect drugs which cause impaired driving. A breathalyzer may show no alcohol but a driver may still be under the influence of illicit drugs.

Illicit drugs are not only unregulated; they are in many cases lethal. The increased purity of heroin and other drugs is causing deaths. In Vancouver there are on average 147 deaths per year due to overdoses of illicit drugs.

In 1998 Canada's long term drug strategy was to reduce the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families and communities. The strategy accepts that eradication of the problem is impossible and that we must simply live with the problem.

Strategies always talk of damage control, harm reduction, cures, intervention, needle exchanges, et cetera, but not preventive measures. The solution is to stop illicit drugs from being manufactured and imported into Canada. We need to protect our borders. We need regular inspections at our borders and ports. The coast guard, surveillance planes, port authorities, local police forces and others must work together and with the tools and resources they need.

A national drug strategy in partnership with federal, provincial and municipal governments must work at the community level to reduce drug use.

We need to infiltrate gangs and criminal organizations. The RCMP and other law enforcement agencies have trouble getting permission to use wiretaps and other surveillance efforts. It takes about 1,500 pages of petition to get such permission. Even then the monitoring period is limited to 90 days. The whole process must be restarted after the 90 days expires. The investigation suffers in the meantime.

During this process codes need to be broken, languages on surveillance tapes have to be translated, and other such work needs to be done to complete the investigations. Our law enforcement agencies need the high tech tools. However the criminals have money and state of the art technology while our police struggle to maintain 20 year old technology.

Money is the motivation for criminal activities. Their money and assets should be confiscated and turned over to our law enforcement agencies to be used to fight crime. We need tougher laws and we need to have them enforced. We need the punishment to fit the crime.

This would establish tough deterrent measures and not encourage crime with the lax laws and lax sentences that the Liberals allow. What we have here is a Liberal government that lacks a will and a vision to address these things. It has been the cause of the problem for so many years.

Now is the time to set up a committee to look into all these things so that something effective can be done. I appreciate speaking to the motion and I look forward to all members of the House supporting the Canadian Alliance motion to set up a committee on the non-medical use of drugs.

[Multiculturalism, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, attending the conference should have been the top priority on her desk.

The minister has no intention of clearing the air. Her refusal to go to the conference is proof of her lack of remorse for her slurs. She is shirking her cabinet duty. She should go. She has to go. Will the Prime Minister order her to attend the Prince George anti-racism conference or fire her?

[Multiculturalism, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the embattled junior minister of multiculturalism refused an invitation to attend an anti-racism conference in Prince George, B.C., next month.

To heal the wounds and have her apology accepted, she should have offered to go to Prince George even before she was invited. By refusing to go, the minister is arrogantly demonstrating the insincerity of her apology.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if she is serious in her apology she must attend the anti-racism conference in Prince George?