Gurmant Grewal

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member this question because he asked me where I was. It is important that we take this issue in totality and try to help Canadians and to help future generations.

This is an integrated effort, team work. All of us should work together. This is a very serious issue. This is no time to play politics or political games.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue the hon. member has raised. He asked where I was. I want to ask him where he was when organized crime was taking place in the streets. Where was he when the moral of police and law enforcement agencies went down? Where was he when a major drug dealer was deported from the country in 1995? He changed his name, came back to Canada in 1997 and is still dealing drugs in the country.

Where was he when he saw the revolving door and that people were selling drugs on east Vancouver streets? I went for a ride along with the RCMP one evening. They showed me all around the back alleys where the drugs were sold and the druggies were using them. The system is a revolving door. The officers told me that as soon as Honduran refugees on the streets see the police car stop they raise their arms because they know the process. They will stick their tongues out because they know they have to be checked. No one is talking but the action is still taking place because the people are used to it.

I invite the member to come to the streets of east Vancouver where people have been dying from drug overdoses. The dealers are entrenched into the system and are not legitimate refugees in Canada. The officers said that when they search the people who are selling drugs every one of them would have a certain amount of money of all denominations in their pockets. They searched them and it was true.

The officers said that if they were to search them they will have a business card of only one lawyer. We saw probably 16 of them. At every corner of the street they had the business card of the same lawyer.

I invite the hon. member to visit east Vancouver to see it and not to sit here and simply make a political attack in the House. I invite him to look through the lens of issues, not through the lens of politics.

It has been the mentality of government members that when opposition parties raise some issue they first ignore it. Then we increase the volume and they reject the premise like the member is doing. When we increase the volume even more they steal the ideas. They should have vision. They should have taken action on organized crime many years ago. The Liberal and Tory governments time and again denied that there was any organized criminal activity taking place anywhere in Canada.

If they had taken action then and had vision we would not be facing this problem today. Government action is many years behind. It should have taken action probably 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

It is never too late but it first has to acknowledge that there is a problem. The Liberals time and again throughout this debate have rejected and failed to acknowledge that there is any problem with organized crime at this moment in Canada.

There is a proverb in English which explains the learning philosophy. I said it in the House some time ago but I will repeat it: He who knows not and knows not that he knows not can never learn. The person will never learn until he recognizes that he does not know.

That is the Liberal mentality. Hon. members of the House have time and again given many analogies and examples and quoted many experts about organized crime. Even I can quote one. Recently the new head of the RCMP, Commissioner Zaccardelli, said members of organized crime were trying to corrupt and threaten parliament and other Canadian institutions.

Crime is everywhere. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am a member of the subcommittee. I heard what other members did not hear. The member probably is a member of that committee and he was not there. I want to ask him where he was when the committee was having hearings.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate tonight. We are debating the issue of organized crime and what Canadians want the federal government to do to fight organized crime.

For the benefit of Canadians watching this debate, I am honoured to represent the Canadian Alliance as a recently appointed member of the subcommittee on organized crime which is currently conducting in camera hearings.

Committee members are under a gag order that the Liberal dominated committee has insisted on applying. Therefore, I will be careful not to violate that order in my remarks tonight. I will not be able to say certain things which I may have been tempted to say otherwise. I will also be careful not to point fingers at any organized groups or organizations. I will be diligent not to reveal any proceedings nor compromise the secrecy or security of the witnesses appearing before the subcommittee.

I can declare that this committee is a facade. My constituents and I and most Canadians are used to this kind of inaction by the weak Liberal government. After seven years of being in power the government has finally created this committee to investigate organized crime. Where has the government been for the last seven years? Did it not know about the magnitude of organized crime? The government struck this committee simply because we are on the eve of the next election and the Liberals want to be able to say that they have done something about organized crime. What a sham. By the time the committee submits a report it will be too late for the government to do anything about it because the Liberals will not form the government after the next election.

Tonight our brothers and sisters from Quebec are demanding that the government do something before October 6 of this year. As everyone knows, last week in Quebec there was a brutal organized crime related shooting of a journalist, the well known crime reporter Michel Auger.

I am sorry to say that this tired, weak, arrogant Liberal government that lacks vision will not be responding to Quebec's plea for immediate action against organized crime. The hearts of the people of Surrey Central go out to the people of Quebec. They have our sympathy.

I hope the committee does good work. I wish it could work fast and that we could get on with the work of combating organized crime and its effect on our society. Organized crime in Canada takes many forms and is flourishing due to mismanagement and lack of vision and action by the government.

International drug cartels use Canada as a point of transit for distribution of their illicit and life destroying products. There are many cross-border issues that bring organized crime into our country, including our close proximity to the U.S. and our lax laws.

There is no clear, precise definition of organized crime. It includes money laundering, drugs, weapons and commodities smuggling, counterfeit currency, credit cards, passports and fake identification, telemarketing, loan sharking, insurance fraud, theft, human smuggling, prostitution, extortion, home invasion and trafficking in stolen goods. These are all areas within the purview of organized crime.

Corruption in our industries and political corruption in particular are the result crime that is highly organized and aimed at achieving the corruption of our public officials and the captains of our industries.

Violence is a byproduct of organized crime. It is a trap that criminals use to get what they want.

The cost to society is huge. According to a CSIS report released in December 1998 it is estimated that the Canadian economy lost $14.8 billion to international organized crime. The underground economy is big. It is a threat to our society and a threat to civilization.

In my opinion it is almost a national emergency. It is already late. The government should have taken solid action many years ago. For many years our governments were asleep at the wheel. The various Liberal and Tory governments failed to realize and even acknowledge the problem of organized crime, let alone the action plan to counter it.

If politicians in our country deny or downplay the importance of organized crime and refuse to talk about it publicly because it may antagonize an ethnic community, or because it may upset the image of Canada or a province or a city as a crime free area, then organized crime has a licence to do what it pleases.

Despite the evidence, the infrequent official Canadian commissions into organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s all concluded that organized crime did not exist in Canada. It was not until the 1977 report of the commission of inquiry on organized crime that the concept was finally documented.

A CBC program in June 1977 provided Canadians with six hours of television about the mafia and triads in Canada, which finally brought the topic into the open for the general public. Since then, none of the Liberal or Tory governments have taken any concrete action to curb it.

Our current Prime Minister believes in a don't worry, be happy policy. Organized crime seems to be a campaign issue in the next election. The government is soft on crime in our foreign missions and is weak in control and management of every department. We regularly read about it in the newspapers these days.

For example, in British Columbia, my constituents always watch for and pay close attention to excellent new articles by Fabian Dawson of the Vancouver Province newspaper. He has been diligent in chronicling the evidence and details of incidents of abuse totalling millions of dollars in over a dozen Canadian missions abroad.

Canada had about 2,000 blank visa forms allegedly stolen from our Hong Kong office. By failing to deal with corruption in our foreign missions, the government is providing a means for criminal entry into Canada and has hung a welcome sign on Canada's back door.

Another example is 788 files containing sensitive background information on businessmen and criminals have been deleted from the computer assisted immigration processing system in order to allow undesirable people and people who otherwise would not qualify to enter Canada. The files will be altered simply to bring the criminal element back into Canada. This information is given according to Brian McAdam, a former investigator and internationally renowned expert on triads. McAdam also knows all about the so-called sidewinder investigation that has been tanked due to political pressure. What a bag of snakes that one is.

Since my election I have been working with the RCMP to pursue reports from my constituents about harassment they receive from corrupt officials in Canadian offices abroad. For example, my 1998 report to the RCMP concerning visa scams resulted in the firing of local workers at Canadian missions in New Delhi, India and Islamabad, Pakistan. Alleged bribes, stolen money, compromised interests of officials, and corruption from locally hired staff in many of our foreign missions is left unaddressed by the government.

The criminal element is now light years ahead of our law enforcement agencies. They have state of the art equipment because they have no shortages of resources. They have unlimited money at their disposal. They continue to exploit the lack of action. That is typical of the Liberal government's poor record in preventing corruption to begin with and getting to the bottom of it once detected.

The government gives terrorists and organized criminals their tax free status in Canada. About 50 so-called terrorist organizations enjoy tax free status according to CSIS. Taxpayers, through our federal government, are helping terrorists and organized criminals to send money to finance weapons acquisitions to commit terrorist activities in other countries. Even the federal ministers help them raise funds by attending their fundraisers. These things are public knowledge.

Last spring before the House rose for the summer recess I met with a group of Tamils who came to Parliament Hill. There was a huge number of people. There was a big gathering, a rally. I passed to the Prime Minister the petition they brought with them calling on the government to go forward with Canada's recent agreement to support the United Nations declaration to fight terrorism.

At about the same time Canada Post was scrambling to try to prevent a so-called vanity stamp of a Tamil tiger from being released. A stamp had already been issued to a Tamil tiger supporter even though that person was deceased before the stamp was issued which is contrary to vanity stamp guidelines. As it happened, by mismanagement of our federal government our departments were not working hand in hand. Foreign affairs could have shared with Canada Post the details or pictures of individuals being proposed for vanity stamps.

The worst criminal element already considers Canada a haven due to the lenient criminal justice system operated by the Liberals. Why is it that the Liberals only means of detecting criminal activity at our foreign missions and HRDC is through routine audits? The Liberals refuse to implement a system of self-detection and self-correction in the operation of Canadian offices in foreign lands. Indeed, they apply a cover-up mentality to internal audits that reveal serious and daunting information concerning abuses. They try to hush up and discredit information pertaining to mismanagement. The Liberals should not rely on the media or members of parliament and whistleblowers to protect Canadian interests and the loss of taxpayer dollars to the criminal element operating in foreign nations.

Finally, they seek to punish whistleblowers who come forward with information to help correct the system, save taxpayers' money, protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am prepared to table in the House very shortly a private member's bill entitled the whistleblower protection act. It has been delayed due to translation problems.

On behalf of my constituents and Canadians I can recommend that to fight the effects of organized crime our federal government should have an integrated approach to the various departments such as justice, various law enforcement agencies, immigration and citizenship, foreign affairs and international trade, defence, revenue and customs, finance, transportation, telecommunications, even agriculture, fisheries and oceans because they have vessels to patrol, the RCMP, CSIS, the passport office and many other departments. This is common sense.

We should also have an integrated approach at various levels of government, the federal government, provincial and territorial governments and municipal governments. We should also have co-operation between politicians, the judiciary and bureaucrats. They should complement each other in an effort to combat organized crime. Organized crime is like a cancer and its control should be treated like a process.

We should give effective legislation to our law enforcement agencies. We should reduce the unnecessary paperwork load that keeps the hands of law enforcement agencies tied.

We need better wiretapping regulations to assist the agencies. We need to amend proceeds of crime legislation. We need to amend the Immigration Act. There is a need to review penalties for organized criminals and drug dealers. We should pass legislation with teeth, and there should be no more revolving doors.

Legislation like disclosure provisions should not be used as fishing expeditions by lawyers for the criminals. Laws pertaining to disclosure need to be amended.

We should be working closely with our foreign allies, our friends and other nations that want to combat organized crime. There should be a high level of co-operation and sharing of intelligence and resources.

Organized crime is a systemic problem rather than a bad apple scenario. We have to get tough and smart. The lazy Liberal government should either effectively lead or simply get out of the way.

In the end, today I see our young promising new team of pages. I would like to welcome them to the House of Commons and wish them all the best. Today I was the first member to speak in the House and I forgot at that time and now I am the last member to speak as well. It was really a serious issue. I believe that all members of the House contributed to this issue and we should effectively deal with organized crime in Canada.

[Human Resources Development, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, why was the minister not straightforward with the taxpayers? Why was she trying to misguide the House at that time?

[Human Resources Development, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on November 3, 1999 the HRDC minister said that the TJF projects had been managed properly, but they were not. She then said that the TJF projects went through the acceptable review process, but they did not. She then said that the process had been fully addressed, but it had not.

Why was the minister so economical with the truth but not with taxpayers' dollars?

[National Defence Act, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and on behalf of the Canadian Alliance to participate in the debate on Bill S-18. The bill originated in the Senate and that is why it is numbered S-18. Usually the bills we debate originate in the House of Commons, but the weak, arrogant Liberal government which lacks vision did not have the stamina to introduce the bill in this House. The bill started in the other house which normally gives sober second thought to what we debate here and send there for senators to comment on.

The Liberal government proposes to amend the National Defence Act by adding a section declaring that a person who is under the age of 18 years may not be deployed by the Canadian forces to a theatre of hostilities.

The Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill. All Canadians support protecting our children from harm. We do not like to see children in contact with aggression. We see this all the time in many parts of the world, particularly in the developing countries.

As my eldest son will be 17 years old this year, I can understand the state of health, the mental maturity and the views of a 17 year old.

As a nation we feel helpless watching the images of sometimes very young children trapped in combat situations. We have watched on TV the young children used or abused in civil wars in third world countries, such as in Africa, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and many other countries.

Some kids who are in the combat role cannot even lift the heavy weapons they are using. A loaded AK-47 is too heavy for some of the children who are shooting and killing people mercilessly. This causes us to want to do something to protect our own children in Canada and send a strong message to the rest of the world, particularly to the countries I mentioned where the children are used and abused in the civil wars.

The sentiment of the bill is understandable. We do not want minors serving in combat. In that sense, the Alliance agrees with the objective of the bill.

The Canadian forces has a policy that precludes members under the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being deployed to hostile theatres of operation. Bill S-18 proposes to print this policy in the National Defence Act.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Bill S-18 should be amended to say the following, “A person under the age of 18 years may not be deployed in a combat unit which has been placed on active service and deployed to a theatre of hostilities”.

Active service under the National Defence Act means service: (a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.

This ensures that minors will not be deployed in combat but still allows for flexibility in employing soldiers in support of active operations. As my hon. colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla has mentioned, soldiers are employed by support units like engineering, signals or other support activities in defence.

The genesis of Bill S-18 is an optional protocol that has been proposed for adoption at the United Nations. By the end of this year, once this optional protocol is adopted, the United Nations will want member countries to sign on. Clearly, the deployment and recruitment practices and policies of the Canadian armed forces satisfy the provisions of the United Nations optional protocol.

The terms of Bill S-18 are left completely undefined. What constitutes a theatre of hostilities? It is not defined in the bill.

To the Prime Minister, a theatre of hostilities may be a Canadian Alliance townhall meeting.

Are the Liberals going to prohibit the activation of underage reservists within Canada in the event of some internal emergency? Is it necessary to ban persons under the age of 18 from serving in rear area duties in theatres where hostilities may be taking place? Certain terms or definitions in this bill remain undefined.

Yesterday I was debating another bill, Bill C-19. Many terms in that bill, even the procedures and rules of evidence, were not defined, but the government still rushed it through because it did not want to wait. There will probably be an election so it wanted to do something in a rush without properly monitoring and taking care that the bill would serve its intended purpose. It tried to put the horse before the cart.

We see that again here in this one line bill. There are no details and no definitions. If we are going to expand the reserves, we should not place artificial and ill-defined restrictions on the use of personnel in theatres of operation. We should try to convince the government to amend the bill to say that a person under the age of 18 years may not be deployed in a combat unit which has been placed on active service and deployed to a theatre of hostilities. This would ensure that minors would not be deployed in combat, but would still allow for flexibility in employing soldiers in support of active operations.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents and all those people who are affected by impaired driving. Bill C-18 is an act to amend the criminal code with regard to impaired driving causing death and other matters.

The bill has been long overdue and this weak Liberal government may not have introduced it if it were not up to hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, the proud point man of the Canadian Alliance.

Immediately after the election in 1997 I was contacted by one of my constituents and friends who told me the story of a couple of young men that had just graduated. They were having fun at a party. They got together in a pub and may have had a couple of beers. They decided not to drive home but to walk, which was the right thing to do. Their home was about one kilometre away. These youths were walking on the sidewalk on their way home when some drunk driver came from behind and lost control of his car. He ran over one of those kids and killed him on the spot. This incident did not affect only the family but it affected the whole community. It personally touched me.

Bill C-18 was brought to the House in a timely fashion by the justice minister. I congratulate the hon. for Prince George—Bulkley Valley for his efforts. The bill amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death to life imprisonment. It provides for the taking of blood samples for the purpose of testing for the presence of drugs and makes other amendments. I believe my constituents and all other Canadians will feel relieved that the bill has been introduced.

I will close by simply saying that I appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I thank him for his efforts. Because of him we see some improvements. His efforts are paying off. I urge all hon. members to support the bill so that it will become law as soon as possible.

[Natural Gas, June 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Motion No. 298. The motion calls for the government to provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions in Canada.

As always in private members' business, it is appropriate to commend the hon. member for raising a matter in the House that otherwise would not be raised. The matter the hon. member for Churchill River has raised shows clearly that his heart is in the right place. The availability of environmentally friendly clean fuel for the remote areas of Canada is important.

As a member from one of the largest metropolitan centres in Canada, one of the fastest growing in population, our hearts go out to the small towns and villages and very remote areas in our country.

There are many of us who can only imagine what it is like to not enjoy the conveniences and easy access to things that we frankly take for granted in our busy cities. These things include many types of infrastructure, such as roads, water, sewers, electricity, telephone and other things that become very precious when we talk about Canada's communities bordering on our hinterland. The member can be assured that the people of Surrey Central respect and acknowledge what this motion is trying to address.

We take for granted the natural gas that heats our homes and cooks our meals. It is not our fault. In our daily lives, with all of the hustle and bustle, we consider certain things as given, but Canada's northern climate creates unique heating needs, not only in homes but also in schools and workplaces.

As parliamentarians we would like to help provide areas unserviced by natural gas with initiatives to reduce heavy oil and diesel dependency. Where natural gas is available, a variety of energy efficiency opportunities are possible. Coal generation and mixed fuel power production are two examples.

Energy efficiency in Canada will be a contributing factor in our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is the cleanest burning and most acceptable carbon energy source. Canadian natural gas is distributed to more than four million customers in six provinces.

Natural gas provides 26% of Canada's energy needs, and this percentage is increasing each year. In addition, Canada's natural gas exports are experiencing exponential growth. Canada has plenty of natural gas. It is an economical source of energy and it is clean, but it is under provincial jurisdiction. The provision of natural gas is a matter for the provinces to deal with.

We have to be sure that justification exists for bringing in natural gas over a significant geographical hurdle. We need to ensure that there is considerable demand for the commodity. To fulfil what the motion is asking may require that a remote community have a special need, or at least more of a need than normal business activity and activity in the residential sector would ordinarily demand. This may mean that remote communities with a potential major consumer, for example a large business, would be seen to have a greater demand than another community. What is the solution?

There is room for governments to regulate rates so that averaging would make services and commodities more affordable and increase total demand by making them more attractive for more consumers. The provinces and the territories have a very important regulatory role to play in these activities. All of these things are already happening where they are needed, where demand is sufficient and where they are not a burden on the taxpayers. They are market sensitive and regionally sensitive and they properly allocate our energy resources.

The governments of Quebec and New Brunswick recognized the need for regional natural gas distribution. They signed an agreement in February for improved services and allocation.

There is opportunity in northern and other remote areas for natural gas exploration incentives that would place the source close to unserviced communities. This would create a whole new affordability index in terms of servicing remote communities. In these situations there is opportunity for provincial and territorial governments to put incentives in place to try to expand the servicing area of natural gas distribution.

However, this is an entirely different matter from what this private member's motion contemplates. This motion contemplates federal spending when the jurisdiction is almost exclusively provincial or territorial. In other words, the motion contemplates a massive intrusion of the federal government into provincial and territorial affairs.

As I have said, Canada is a major global natural gas producer and a major exporter to the United States. Canadian companies are at the forefront in developing natural gas alternatives to traditional engine fuels. Many people are aware of this, as much attention has been paid to the stock market and publicly traded companies.

The major environmental benefit is that this reduces vehicle pollutants. The economic benefits come from the reduced fuel cost, as well as reduced maintenance costs and increased engine life.

Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada, as we know, is blessed with large reserves. It is important that we properly manage our wealth in this respect. We must do it right in terms of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage our legacy.

Earlier in the spring, the foreign affairs committee travelled to Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia. There is a great deal of oil and gas in these parts of the world and there exists a well-knit pipeline in the region. There is a potential for the rest of the world, particularly Canadian companies, to explore those possibilities.

In Canada gas prices increase because we rely on Middle East countries for our supply, among other factors. Whenever the Middle East decides to jack-up its prices, it affects the prices at home. We now see the average Canadian paying more at the gas pumps because the prices are fluctuating significantly. We do not want to be susceptible to the gulf crisis of the early 1990s or other kinds of crises that occur in that region of the world which cause our energy costs to rise.

If the government takes on an initiative to help construct more natural gas pipelines to remote areas in Canada, we would hope that it would work with the provinces, the territories and the private sector. The private sector could take over the pipelines once they were up and running and allow market forces to prevail. That would be sustainable development. That would accomplish the intent of this motion.

Once again, I appreciate the intent of the motion and I appreciate the work done by the hon. member from the NDP on this issue.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a number of petitions containing 700 signatures. The petitions are from concerned Canadians, mostly from my constituency of Surrey Central.

The petitioners are asking why parliament was not recalled immediately to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. court decision and to ensure that the possession of child pornography in B.C. is illegal.

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get the answer to my first question. Why was there such a rush to ram this bill through parliament, particularly when it is quite likely that the House will be recessing before the weekend? Why could we not have waited until September or October when the international negotiations, the definitions, the procedures and the rules of evidence will be laid down and the rules of the game will be clear. Why did the government not wait until the rules of the game were clear and then draft a perfectly excellent bill that all parties could support?

Everyone is supporting the intent of the bill. Even the Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill but we do not want to leave the bill half cooked. We want to make sure it is well done. I would like to know why there was such a hurry.