Gurmant Grewal

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 200 put forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough because it is very close to my heart.

I was shocked to hear the hon. member from the Liberal side say that the motion had no relevance. It is very relevant and there is a need for the government to introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. This is the highest Chamber in the nation.

On the other hand, even professionals, like doctors, lawyers, insurance agents and real estate agents, have a code of conduct for their members.

No wonder voter turnout has been falling. We need to restore the public's trust in the reputation, credibility and integrity of members of parliament in this House. There is a need to restore the reputation, credibility, integrity and faith in politicians. There is a need to set a higher bar for members of parliament and set an example for Canadians.

I believe there is a need to address the issue of conflict of interest, particularly in light of the shadow hanging over the Prime Minister over the ethics issue. Look at the government's record on patronage and its record of handing out grants and contributions and tying them to the donations given to the political party.

All these issues make it so important for us to have this code of conduct. It cannot be confidential, as the government states. I emphasize the need to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

[Taxation, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the crude cost of gasoline is 28.9 cents a litre. Federal, provincial and excise taxes are added to it. Then 7% GST is charged on the total. The price of the same gasoline becomes 74 cents per litre. We are talking about a tax on top of taxes.

The Prime Minister at least should not be so greedy as to charge consumers GST on taxes. A tax is neither a good nor a service. Why would he not be fair and not charge the GST?

[Taxation, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians buy gasoline at the pumps the price includes federal and provincial taxes. On top of that, this greedy government charges the infamous goods and services tax. In simple words, consumers pay the GST on other taxes.

How could the Prime Minister, since he is the expert on GST, justify the application of the GST on other taxes? Why will he not remove it?

[American National Missile Defence System, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the private member's motion brought forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. I know of my colleague's work in the foreign affairs portfolio. We have served together on the committee since 1997. The member is an experienced member of the House and has led many personal crusades, some being very controversial. I have learned to work with him on an issue by issue basis.

In the House hardworking members bring forward private members' bills and motions. I appreciate very much their hard work and the intent behind their bills and motions. The motion today calls on the government to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Canada does not participate in the research, development, or production of components for use in the proposed American national missile defence system.

It is my understanding that America's missile defence system is still mostly only a part of the imagination or planning of U.S. military strategists. They think they can do something to protect North America from a nuclear weapons attack. They are not yet sure what is possible in this regard, but they have pledged to the world that they would continue in their tradition as defenders of the free world to develop a missile defence system.

My colleague seems to be seeking to shut down all Canadian consultations and research. He would shut down exports to the U.S. of technology, wire, aluminum, pencils or anything else that the Americans might use in their quest to protect North America from nuclear weapon attacks. I have read the motion carefully. We have just heard from the hon. member his intention with respect to the motion, but I am concerned that he is overreacting.

Let us look into the background of the whole issue. During the cold war, effective arms control agreements between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union acted as a deterrent to the Soviet threat to deploy missiles in western Europe. Though it never went beyond the theoretical stage, the American strategic defence initiative, SDI of the 1980s, has been acknowledged as a factor that forced the Soviets to the arms agreement table. Now, 20 years later, the United States is on the verge of deploying the national missile defence system, known as the NMD program.

From what little the U.S. has told the world, its current missile defence system proposal, the NMD, is not as grand in scope as the SDI. It is more easily deployable, tactically as opposed to strategically focused and extremely practical. George W. Bush has made it clear that he endorses the program and plans to proceed with its implementation. Everyone knows that he would like Canada to be part of that implementation.

Let us look at the issue strategically. The application of the NMD is intrinsically tied to North American aerospace defence, NORAD. It was an alliance forged between Canada and the U.S. in 1958 and has been the focal point of Canada's air defence policy ever since. With headquarters in Colorado Springs, NORAD is the most sophisticated air surveillance system on earth and monitors potential airborne threats to Canada and the U.S. It is in constant communication with U.S. air force and Canadian air force units designated as primary NORAD interception units.

Originally tracking stations in Canada along the distant early warning line, the DEW line, provided primary intelligence but were replaced by satellites in the 1980s.

Because NORAD remains charged with defending North America's continental air space the NMD program falls into NORAD's mandate and the alliance is expecting to be formally tasked with administering the program. For Canada not to participate in NMD would be problematic to the joint intelligence, security and military efforts that NORAD accomplishes.

How could Canada be privy to a portion of the NORAD operation and be excluded from NMD activities? The tension inherent in such a relationship could very well cause a serious reappraisal of the NORAD partnership or indeed an end to the defence alliance. This potential consequences would be devastating for Canada.

We cannot protect our airspace, gather the degree and volume of intelligence currently amassed by NORAD, or provide the air force training opportunities currently afforded by membership in NORAD. In the interest of our own defence we should allow the Americans the opportunity to ask us how, if and when they want us to participate. Moreover, we should allow them to develop their efforts to the point of a formal proposal before we condemn them.

I will indicate the reasons the Canadian Alliance believes that Canada should support and be an early partner in the NMD. The NMD is a land based system that is easily deployable and relatively simple in design and scope. It is primarily tactical in scope and is not viewed as an absolute defence against a massive missile attack against North America. It is designed to prevent accidents and aggression from rogue states. It is not a grand strategic plan that is aimed at eradicating all missile threats at all times. The NMD will not result in any escalation or renewal of the arms race.

Therefore arguments that it will nullify the anti-ballistic missile treaty are specious since the ABM treaty can be amended at any time. The NMD offers at no cost tremendous security, intelligence and military benefits to Canada. Like our membership in NORAD where club dues are basically waived, participation in the NMD will not have any financial impact upon Canada. Rather it will enhance, not reduce, Canadian security.

The program will proceed with or without Canadian involvement. We would be well advised to participate at the ground level in order to gain the maximum benefits possible. Canadian military leaders are overwhelmingly committed to the plan, including Lieutenant General George MacDonald, the deputy commander of NORAD who sees grave consequences for Canada if we choose not to participate in the program.

For these reasons we will endorse the plan in principle. We continue to encourage the government to participate fully in the NMD and cease its unfortunate habit of alienating our best friend, closest ally and largest trading partner, the United States. Canada could only benefit from this far reaching plan. Canada must see what the NMD system will be once fully developed. If it is as presented, we must support it and give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt while it works out options for missile defence.

In the post-cold war era there is a new, real and growing threat since the world is confronted with a more diverse, less predictable and more risk prone group of states armed with increasingly capable weapons of mass destruction used as tools of terror, blackmail and aggression.

There is always a risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch of an existing ballistic missile. Therefore, we as an ally of the U.S. have a moral imperative to allow the use of all reasonable tools available to deal with this threat. Missile defence will be a necessary element of deterrence and an opportunity for a collective approach to enhancing security for all.

[Supply, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the official opposition's supply day motion calling on the Liberal government to immediately create a national sex offender registry.

Creating a national sex offender registry is a non-partisan issue because it is about the safety and protection of Canadians and our children and their futures. It is about making our streets, our neighbourhoods and our communities safer. I would expect the Liberals to not look through the lens of political stripes but rather through the lens of issues and to the importance of this issue.

Once again the Canadian Alliance must twist the arm of the government. We did that two weeks ago. We forced backbench Liberal MPs, all Liberal MPs except two, to vote against Liberal Party policy. In red book one the Liberals called for the establishment of an independent ethics counsellor. Because they have yet to fulfil that promise, the Canadian Alliance gave the Liberals that opportunity two weeks ago, but they voted against their own promise.

As the official opposition, not only do we provide effective criticism of the government but we also provide alternative solutions. As the official opposition we carry the flashlight and very often show the Liberals their darkness. Sometimes we even make them read their own red books.

I commend the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford for spearheading the Canadian Alliance supply day motion on the creation of a national sex offender registry. He has been working on the issue for quite some time. I feel that I bring a unique perspective to the debate today.

In the last election the three-time defeated Liberal candidate advocated in Surrey Central that, if elected, he would create a national sex offender registry through a private member's bill. The Liberal candidate in Surrey Central was already told, probably before the election, that a new Liberal government would not create a national sex offender registry. That is why he resorted to a private members' bill.

The Prime Minister admitted that parents have the right to be concerned and he virtually confessed to the candidate in Surrey Central that he could not stop him from trying to create the registry through a private members' bill. The Prime Minister knew that his office and the cabinet do not listen to backbench members after an election. The MPs listen to the Prime Minister's office and the party whip.

The Prime Minister knows that private members' business is a weaker tool in the House since all private members' bills are not votable. Very rarely does a private members' bill or motion become law. A private members' bill is like a pacifier given to a baby. It keeps the baby busy and hopeful but nothing comes out of it. That is how private members' business in the House operates because they are not votable. We keep working hard but very rarely does something come out of it. That was the point the Liberal candidate from Surrey Central was trying to make.

The official opposition motion is about creating a national sex offender registry. The motion is votable. It is a litmus test for Liberal members in the House. I am proud to be here today joining my colleagues as a member of the official opposition team calling for the establishment of something that was promised by my opponent in the recent election.

The sex offender registry would be established and maintained by the solicitor general's department. The registry would contain the name, address, date of birth, list of sex offences and any other prescribed information about a person convicted of a sex offence anywhere in Canada.

Information to be included in the registry would be collected from offenders themselves and from any other source available to the minister such as Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, et cetera.

The registry would be available only to the minister and police forces for the purpose of crime prevention and law enforcement. The registry would apply to every person convicted of a sex offence or found not criminally responsible for a sex offence on account of a mental disorder. This would include anyone serving a sentence for a sex offence on the day the registry comes into force and would not apply to young offenders.

Every offender who resides in Canada would be required to register in person at his or her local police station at least once a year and provide updated information to be added to the registry. The offender would be required to register within 15 days of release from custody.

Persons convicted of a sex offence that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or less would have to report to police for 10 years. Persons convicted of a sex offence with a longer sentence would have to report to the police for the rest of their lives.

Any person pardoned for all of their sex offences would be relieved of the requirement to report to police and his or her record would be deleted from the registry. Any offender whose name appears in the registry may ask to see the information and correct it if necessary. Regulations may be made to limit the number of times a person may ask to see such information. A police officer would be able to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a person failing to register and report as required.

If convicted, the offender would face a fine of up to $25,000 and/or up to a year in prison for the first offence. A second offence would bring a $25,000 fine and/or up to two years less a day in jail.

Such legislation is long overdue. One-fifth of all offenders in Canada are sex offenders. One-fourth of the total federal incarcerated population is sex offenders. Out of sex offenders under community supervision 14% are on day parole, 31% are on full parole and 54% are on statutory release. They are out in the community. This illustrates the gravity of the situation and the importance of passing the motion.

In the United States the registries assist police to identify suspects and solve sex offences quicker. In the United Kingdom the sex offenders act has been in place since September 1997. The province of Ontario has created a provincial registry due to government inaction at the federal level. Other provinces like British Columbia and Saskatchewan will also be establishing similar registries.

A national sex offender registry has the support of many groups, including the Ontario and Saskatchewan associations of chiefs of police, the Canadian Police Association, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. There is widespread support for such a registry. In Surrey Central, Councillor Dianne Watts has collected a large number of signatures on a petition which will be tabled in the House later.

In conclusion, it is appropriate that we are discussing the matter today. Last week the police arrested a convicted pedophile after the man allegedly breached probation in Saskatchewan and was applying for jobs at Ontario day care centres. He was caught allegedly shoplifting at a local department store.

All David Caza's applications were rejected after the day care centres did a criminal background check. We are debating today a Canadian Alliance motion to create a national sex offender registry which would disable people like David Caza from pursuing innocent victims. The government should give police this new and effective tool for crime prevention and law enforcement.

[Right Of Landing Fee, March 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of Motion No. 231, that the government should eliminate the right of landing fee on all classes of immigrants to Canada.

I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for moving the motion. I would point out that in 1998 I moved a similar motion in the immigration committee, which would have eliminated the head tax, but the Liberal members on the committee unanimously opposed it. Today, when the hon. member from the PC Party asked for unanimous consent, it was again the Liberal members, not opposition party members, including the Canadian Alliance, who were opposed to making the motion votable.

I am convinced that the right of landing fee is a cash cow for the Liberal government. The government is hungry to increase taxes whenever it gets the opportunity to balance its budget on the backs of taxpayers. In this case, it is raising taxes on the backs of refugees and prospective new immigrants. The tax has been in place for six years. The government has raked in about $1.2 billion from new immigrants. That is about $1,000 per immigrant per year.

Where does all the money go? It does not go for resettlement purposes or into the departmental budget. It goes to the general revenues of the government, this big, bulky government.

The head tax is not based on need. It is not based on the income of the people or the educational level. For example, people teaching English or French in another country may still have to pay for English as a second language when they come to Canada. The tax does not take into consideration the ability to settle in Canada. It is a very unfair head tax on prospective immigrants.

When we speak about the historical perspective, the head tax has connotations of the discriminatory past of our country. The government imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants to Canada from 1885 to 1923 to discourage them from coming here.

It started at $50 per head and then rose to $500 per head. This head tax, which continues into the 21st century, reminds us of the Chinese exclusion act. It also reminds us of the discriminatory practices with respect to the Komagata Maru ship which came to Canada. Based on race and country of origin, the passengers of that ship, most of whom were refugees, were not allowed to land on this great land. After many days, the ship was forced out of Canadian waters. When it arrived back in India, many of the passengers were gunned down by the government at that time.

It also reminds us of the discriminatory practices followed in the old age security benefits, commonly called a pension for seniors. It is discriminatory because it is not needs based.

This head tax discriminates against the poor and people of colour from Third World countries. Those prospective immigrants who come from developed countries have to pay that fee which is equivalent to about 15 days of wages in developed countries. Fifteen hundred dollars is about 15 days wages. For many of the developing countries, it takes about 15 months to save that $1,500. Then we translate or convert that currency into the local currency of that country.

In the underdeveloped countries, or the backward countries I should say, like Zaire, it takes 15 years for people to save $1,500 Canadian per person. When a family of four or more people plan to come to Canada, this head tax acts as a deterrent for those individuals.

In many other countries, the immigration visa fee is adjusted according to the cost of living in those countries. For example, if one applies for a British visa, the fee depends on from which country one is applying. In certain countries, the fees are lowered because the cost of living is lower and the cost of processing that application is lower.

I also want to make it very clear that I talked to many immigrants in my constituency and all over the country. Immigrants want to pay a fee, but a reasonable fee, whether it is a processing fee or whatever name we give it. However this fee becomes unreasonable and acts as a deterrent, particularly so when the minister wants to open the front door, as I have been saying for a long time, and close the back door. When the fees are discriminatory, it does not encourage the immigrants to come through the front door but probably through the revolving door.

There are many individuals and groups who oppose this head tax. Among them are the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Council for Refugees. They came up with a document called “Impact of the Right of Landing Fee” in 1997. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women noted that it has a disproportionate impact on women. The Caledon Institute of Social Policy, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the Canadian Labour Congress and many more oppose this head tax. They oppose it because it is too much. It is double the fee in the U.S.A., for instance, for a family of four entering that country.

Originally in 1995 when the right of landing fee was imposed, the finance minister proposed a fee of $1,700 to $1,800. Due to some good negotiations probably, it came down to $975, even though the former immigration minister wanted it less than $300.

I would also like to mention that the Liberal Party at its 1996 convention passed a resolution for the government to review the head tax. I believe the government has come up with all kinds of lame excuses. If it was a grassroots party, it would have listened to its members.

In conclusion, even though the government eliminated the head tax for refugees in the year 2000, for five years it had been milking those people who were forced to leave their homes. With the deficit having turned into a surplus, the government should lower taxes in general and eliminate the head tax. The minister has the authority to eliminate the service charge because it is not a designated tax. The right of landing fee should be based on equity so that we give new immigrants a chance to settle into their new lives.

Therefore I support this motion and I would ask the other members of the House to support it.

[Grants And Contributions, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a boondoggle. Before 1999 the Liberals published a list of recipients and the amounts, but for the last three years they have been hiding these grants and contributions.

Canadians know that these grants and contributions are being used as a Liberal slush fund. Why will this weak, arrogant and unscrupulous government not at least come clean by publishing these numbers?

[Grants And Contributions, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago the auditor general reported that the multicultural minister's spending on grants and contributions had unclear objectives, lacked due diligence in assessments and approval, and lacked sufficient information on budgets.

Three weeks ago he said that the minister still did not meet the minimum standard of due diligence. Why has this boondoggle been increased by 13% in the estimates this week when there is already absolutely no accountability?

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Then they tell us that is why it is called question period. This is not how it should operate. Quite often ministers reject the facts and premises presented by opposition MPs. They often ridicule opposition members when they ask sincere questions. The media calls question period a farce, a circus, and it is no wonder.

In regard to debates in the House, take note debates are another farce. The procedure the government clings to is one whereby the cabinet or the Prime Minister's office makes the decision and then allows a debate in the House after the decision is made. They do not listen to the debate. Nothing in the contributions during the debate changes that already made decision. The ministers adopt none of the recommendations made by the MPs from any of the political parties during that debate.

Most government MPs read speeches prepared by bureaucrats. Often, less than 10% of MPs are even in the House during debates. I myself once gave a speech in the House when the only people in the House were the Speaker and myself. Often there are more pages in the House than MPs, as we see today.

The procedure prevents anyone on the government side from attending the House with an open mind. Many of the bills we debate here are only a couple of pages in length, yet they sometimes have hundreds of pages of attached regulations, which are never debated in the House.

The procedures the government clings to are giving us government by regulation, not legislation. I call it governing through the back door.

I was the co-chair of the House and Senate Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. That committee has about 800 sets of regulations that are in the process or pipeline of being modified or struck down, but the cabinet refuses to take action on these 800 files. It stalls, it denies, it drags its feet and it stonewalls the committee. Some of these 800 files are 25 years old. Imagine that. Those regulations are not supposed to be there. They have been hanging on in the system for 25 years. It is a disgrace. It is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic.

The government motion we are debating today is an insult and an assault on the rights of MPs. It is an attack on democracy. It is a vindictive exercise in response to the Nisga'a debate in the last parliament when the official opposition used a procedural tool to cause a voting marathon to alert Canadians to the anti-democratic way in which the government was running the House.

I am told that for the Nisga'a debate the hon. member for Elk Island, who is a very dedicated member of the House, more dedicated than many other members of the House, and who is always in the House listening to the debates and participating actively, asked for an incremental cost of the Nisga'a debate, but the reply he got was that the incremental cost was not available. Perhaps there was no incremental cost because many staff members traded off the hours they worked. Probably the closure motion we are debating today will keep us up to eleven o'clock or maybe later.

I strongly believe that the Liberals want to prevent that tool from ever being used again, that tool we attempted to use in order to exercise our democratic rights. Why does the government not simply behave in a manner that would not require the opposition to use the Nisga'a procedural tool ever again?

Be democratic and the opposition parties will not use that procedure any more.

Another important issue is private members' business. Again, it is another farce. Ideally, or in theory at least, private members' business should give the elected representatives of Canadians an opportunity for an initiative to contribute to the formation of legislation in Canada. It should be an opportunity to raise the voice of their constituents in parliament.

A private member's bill or motion for the production of papers does not contribute much to the legislative process unless it is votable. A limited number of private members' bills and motions are made votable by the government. To make private members' business votable is a partisan exercise. It is not supposed to be like that, even though there are members from all parties on the committee. I am convinced from my practical experience that it is a partisan exercise.

It is supposed to be a non-political debate. Very few members come to the House with an open mind. Private members' business is like a pacifier. A pacifier is put in a baby's mouth but there is no milk coming out of it. It is given to a baby without telling the baby to shut up. It is so like telling someone diplomatically to go to hell that the person is looking forward to the trip. It is the same with private members' business. We can write bills and motions, but these things do not cause any change.

When was the last time a private member's bill was passed into law? How many have been passed in the last 20 years? There have been only a few, less than a half a dozen perhaps. Why do we even have private members' business? The government is not fooling us and it is not fooling Canadians.

In conclusion, the procedures the government clings to prevent the House from dealing properly with the expenditures of the government. The supplementary and interim supply budgets are hardly dealt with at all. Is the scrutiny of the money spent by the government not the real purpose for us to be here and to debate? Even that is not allowed to be debated.

I could talk a great deal about how there is no procedure in the House for bringing together the federal and provincial governments. There is little co-operation between these two levels of government and there are no changes being introduced.

The government resists change: electoral reform, Senate reform, parliamentary reform and democratic reform. No wonder the turnout in federal elections is decreasing and was at an all time low in the last federal election.

The credibility of politicians is way down among different professions in Canada. It is high time for reform when members from all sides of the House are complaining that too much power is exercised by the Prime Minister's Office. The government proposes an amendment to the standing orders that strengthens the executive branch and weakens the democracy by weakening and trivializing the role of elected members.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the government's proposed amendments to the standing orders of the House.

The government's motion reads as follows:

That section (5) of Standing Order 76 and section (5) of Standing Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of the notes thereto the following:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

The official opposition is proposing that the government's motion be amended by adding the following:

and for even greater clarity, the Speaker may select for debate all motions, regardless of their nature, if in his or her opinion the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in any way.

It is unfortunate that at a time when members on all sides of the House agree that too much power is concentrated in the Prime Minister's office and exercised by the Prime Minister, the government proposes an amendment to the standing orders that strengthens the executive branch and weakens the role of duly elected members of the House.

The motion is an assault on the rights of Canadians' elected representatives in the House. The government is only interested in selectively borrowing those practices from the U.K. that increase its power over the House of Commons. There are other practices they could borrow from the U.K. that would strengthen our democracy. I will speak about some of them now and later I will speak about committees.

Let me talk about what happens in the House of Commons. Whenever the government feels a formidable challenge or feels that the opposition is embarrassing it, the government cuts off debate in the House and passes whatever piece of business it is working on.

Does the government entertain changes? No. Does it listen to what Canadians are saying? No. This brings us to the heart of some of the procedures in the House that make little or no sense at times.

Why will the government not allow scheduled votes to take place immediately following question period? All members of parliament are in the House for question period. Would it not make sense to vote when everyone is here?

The government is not prepared to entertain good suggestions and ideas from members of parliament on all sides of the House, including its own backbenchers. The government is famous for its thin soup legislative agenda. When the opposition parties try to thicken the soup, the government refuses to allow it.

The country has not had a referendum since the one on the Charlottetown accord, except of course the one on tearing the country apart. The Liberals will not allow important questions to be decided directly by the people. The Liberals are control freaks.

Another issue is petitions. The government does not want to allow Canadians the freedom to speak out on issues. Petitions are good examples of that. Canadians spend a great deal of time and effort in preparing petitions for submission to the House. They spend gas money and go from door to door collecting signatures, in the cold of winter and the heat of summer. The MPs proudly present the work of their constituents in the form of petitions and the Liberals throw them onto a shelf to gather dust. Sometimes after a few months they issue a small token reply using politically correct phrases. The government takes no action on these petitions.

In regard to voting, the Liberal whip tells government MPs how to vote or else. Where is the democracy in that? Not everything has to be a vote of confidence in the House. There have even been assurances from opposition members that a certain vote would not be considered a vote of confidence. An example of this was the vote on hepatitis C.

The government must wake up to the needs of the people in this new millennium. The government is not expected to fall each and every time the 301 members of parliament tell the government what to do. If a vote goes against the government, that should start a process whereby members of parliament work with the government to reach a compromise or to modify the government's position or to do a great number of other things that would allow the will of the people to be done.

Another important aspect of this issue is how we work in committees. The government could allow opposition members to chair more standing committees as they do in other countries, including the U.K. Regarding the election of committee chairs, secret ballots are still not allowed even after insistence by the opposition.

The voting procedure in committees is a completely partisan exercise in which government members gang up on opposition MPs. Even the future business of the committee is decided in a partisan manner, with the government members taking orders from the higher-ups. Even the decisions concerning witnesses who will be permitted to appear before the committee are taken in a partisan manner.

The government prevents significant issues from being dealt with by committees. Through votes in committees where the Liberal members hold the majority of votes, the government can ensure that its own agenda is pursued. Any business that it does not want to deal with never gets heard by the committees.

It is no secret that the government refuses to adopt most of the amendments to legislation that are submitted by opposition members from all parties. Often government members will hold press conferences without making the reports available to opposition members just to pre-empt them by not giving them enough time to prepare their responses, or to not give opposition members credit where credit is due most of the time.

The government is also fighting to prevent committee hearings from being televised. It knows that the way it runs committees is a farce and it does not want Canadians to be able to watch the circus that the House committees have unfortunately become under the dictatorship of this government.

In regard to the various kinds of appointments, the power to appoint senators, the auditor general, the ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner and others should not reside exclusively with the Prime Minister's office. People in positions such as auditor general, ethics counsellor and information commissioner can possibly, after their intensive work, make excellent recommendations to government departments but they are not allowed to do that. People in these positions only report on their investigations and the government can then throw out those reports.

Some of these reports should be considered binding on the government. They are in fact supposed to give direction to the government so they should not be ignored, buried, shelved or ridiculed. The government not only covers up these things but also ridicules and tries to tear down the integrity of the person doing the criticizing.

In regard to parliamentary trips, many members of the House, from all parties, go on international trips from time to time. Whenever delegations from the Parliament of Canada travel abroad, they should be team efforts. Opposition MPs are often denied briefings. They are left out of some of the events and meetings held abroad. Often the government officials will prohibit the opposition members from talking to the media about findings or other issues relating to the trip. They restrict the opportunity for opposition members to express the opposition's views or perspectives. The procedures used by the government are partisan in nature. The Liberals cling to a mentality of exclusion that defeats the full representation of the people of Canada to the outside world.

In regard to special treatment, decisions on government grants, jobs, favours, appointments and a host of others are made by the government to benefit the governing party, the Liberals in this case. Sometimes ministerial permits or visitor's visas are issued to visitors to Canada upon request by government members, even though these same visitors have been refused permits or visas when they applied through opposition MPs.

Canadians are not being treated equally in many respects. The government engages in favouritism based on political support and perhaps sometimes on monetary donations. These are problems of procedure. The process should be fixed so that these kinds of things are not permitted.

In the House, the position of Clerk of the House is a responsible and respectable position. The Clerk of the House is appointed by the Prime Minister. The clerk advises the Speaker. With due respect to the Clerk of the House, our Speaker is elected by secret ballot and the Prime Minister's office continues to try to have a hold on the Speaker through the clerk's office. It defeats the purpose of the election of the Speaker of the House. Canadians do not think it is fair for the Prime Minister to give the clerk a job and then expect the clerk to be neutral and impartial. I say this with great respect for the Clerk of the House, who is a wonderful person, but I maintain that it is not fair. It is not even fair to the clerk.

Question period in the House is another area of procedure in which changes should be considered. Most of the time, the ministers do not provide real answers to important non-partisan questions.