Gurmant Grewal

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present six petitions with just over 500 signatures on them. These signatures are by concerned Canadians, mostly from my constituency of Surrey Central again.

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

We know that this government will not—

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am also honoured to present two petitions with about 135 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from Ontario. They are drawing the attention of the House to the discrimination they declare is caused by Canada's old age security system.

The act discriminates against seniors from certain countries. Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to grant old age security benefits to all seniors over the age of 65 years irrespective of their country of origin.

However, we know that the weak Liberal government, like the head tax, continues to discriminate against immigrants from certain parts of the world. It only follows that the Liberal government would discriminate against immigrants by—

[Petitions, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition containing about 75 signatures of concerned Canadians, mostly from my riding of Surrey Central.

The petitioners feel that the illegal immigrants who arrived on the Vancouver shores are causing undue hardship for bona fide, honest refugees. They maintain that our immigration laws encourage international people smugglers to target Canada.

They are calling on parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees. They want to allow for the deportation of those who are obviously and blatantly abusing the system.

[Kashmir, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians lament the murder of 36 innocent Sikh villagers killed in Kashmir.

The sovereignty over the Kashmir territory between India and Pakistan is the oldest pending border dispute in the world and the most dangerous place on earth, according to U.S. President Clinton.

Canada lost influence in the region when this government had a knee-jerk reaction and hastily imposed sanctions on India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests in 1998. This weak Liberal government is doing nothing to support the American initiative.

Canadians are concerned that the conflict between these two nuclear powers should not only be contained but resolved.

Both India and Pakistan should respect the line of control they agreed to in 1972.

Canada has spent billions of dollars trying to cure conflict in the world, but the Liberals do not have the political will to prevent conflicts. Canadians want the government to be concerned and proactive before it is too late.

[Blood Samples Act, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to strongly support Bill C-244, the blood samples act.

I particularly commend the House leader of the official opposition for introducing the bill. It is very timely and effective. I highly appreciate that the bill has been introduced and I am sure all members in the House will support it.

The purpose of the blood samples act is to protect good Samaritans, health professionals and the front line emergency service providers should they be accidentally or deliberately exposed to another person's bodily fluids while performing their professional duties, emergency first aid or other lifesaving procedures.

This is a very timely bill because those front line officers and people who are there to protect other citizens need protection themselves. The blood samples will help them. They will not have to go through the unnecessary hardship of having to take medicine and having to experience the side effects until a virus and antibodies show that the person was affected by a disease such as HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B.

It is very important that the blood samples which will be ordered by a judge of the court will be taken and not used for any purpose other than for the intended purpose. It would not infringe on the Privacy Act or the confidentiality of the person because under this bill the blood sample would be used for the intended purpose.

In the absence of that knowledge, not only would the person suffer from very serious side effects, it would also put emotional stress on the frontline emergency personnel, the police officers and people in other agencies. They would encounter shock. They would have to deal with the families, the wives, the children and the co-workers.

Police officers, firefighters, emergency response personnel and good Samaritans are at risk and should be entitled to reasonable information, protection and peace of mind in order that they can make informed decisions with respect to precaution and treatment to protect themselves and their loved ones.

This legislation could be tailored to meet the concerns of good Samaritans and emergency personnel, while respecting and balancing the legitimate privacy and security issues of the source person.

I strongly support this legislation and I look forward to seeing it become a permanent fixture in our criminal code and the judicial system.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the motion by the Reform Party is about the government putting hard earned taxpayer dollars where its mouth is, not where its back pocket is. As a result of the Liberal policy, the health care system has been deteriorating steadily.

Does the hon. member agree that the Liberal government should not only restore the funding to health care but also owes Canadians an apology?

[Human Resources Development, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 10,000 pages of inaccurate files, 15 days of non-answers from this weak government, two image consultants, nine police investigations and over $13 million spent with zero jobs created. All this equals one incompetent minister.

Can the Prime Minister give Canadians just one good reason why this incompetent HRD minister should not resign today?

[Stanley Knowles Day, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Motion No. 211 which calls on the government to declare June 18 to be Stanley Knowles Day.

I begin my remarks by commending the hon. member for Churchill for introducing this motion on behalf of the NDP and in fact Canadians who look up to Mr. Knowles and have great respect for his work.

Mr. Knowles was born on June 18, 1908. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a relatively new Canadian. My family and I have been in Canada less than 10 years. Still I know a little bit about Stanley Knowles and from what I know I can say that I highly appreciate what he did for our country.

He was a politician who was dedicated to representing the people who elected him. He delivered his maiden speech to the House on February 3, 1943. He represented the riding of Winnipeg North Centre for over 37 years, from 1942 to 1958 and again from 1962 to 1984. That alone can be considered a remarkable feat. I wonder how many of us can even imagine enjoying such a large amount of support for so many years. The people of Winnipeg had a great deal of confidence in their MP.

The NDP member for Churchill should be commended. The socialist camp in our country must be very proud of Stanley Knowles, claiming him as one of their own. I know that Stanley sat at the clerk's table for many years after he completed his career as a member of parliament. In 1984 he became the only member of parliament ever to be made an honorary officer of the House of Commons with a lifelong chair at the clerk's table.

To the credit of the Liberal government of the day, it was former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who extended the generous and kind offer to Mr. Knowles to stay as a member of the House with his own office in this very building.

As a long time House leader of the NDP, his knowledge of the rules and his love for parliament had no equal. A follower of the social gospel, he was renowned for his advocacy on behalf of the elderly, veterans, the poor and other disadvantaged Canadians. Canadians will be glad to be reminded of Mr. Knowles' accomplishments in this place.

He delivered what some have called one of the greatest speeches in the House while opposing the Liberal government's use of time allocation. The way I have heard the story told, during the 1957 pipeline debate the Louis St. Laurent government tried to cut off debate in the House. That was a Liberal government. The Liberals were trying to limit debate in the same way the Liberal government today does time and again. Back in those days the government's use of closure and time allocation was not common.

Mr. Knowles was a western populist. He came from the roots of where the NDP and the Reform Party supporters come from. My colleagues and I are here to represent those Canadians who know how Stanley Knowles felt when the government tried to use time allocation to ram a bill through the House.

The present government has used time allocation and closure at least 61 times to deprive elected members of the House an opportunity to debate. This is ridiculous. This is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic. It is almost a dictatorship.

In fact the 60th time the government closed debate on a bill was the week before last on the very day the House was supposed to be debating this motion. The government shut down debate on the clarity bill aimed at clarifying how a future referendum for secession will be conducted. This occurred on the very day we were going to ask the government to make arrangements to commemorate an hon. member of the House, someone who fought against time allocation and closure and the limiting of debate in the House. It is so ironic that the man who fought against time allocation on the pipeline bill, a very famous debate in the House more than 40 years ago, is himself the topic of debate in the House.

The 61st time the Liberals cut off debate was on the bill that makes changes to the Canada Elections Act. This bill favours the governing party and in this case it favours the Liberal Party and the Liberals are not going to change that. They have not listened to the Chief Electoral Officer and they have not listened to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. They have no respect for the kind of forward thinking Stanley Knowles was famous for. He would not have supported this legislation if he were speaking from this side of the House.

The Liberals have been in power for almost seven years. They only have to shut down debate on any bill in the House five more times and they will be tied with Brian Mulroney's all-time record of 66 times. It took Mulroney nine years to stifle democracy 66 times. The Liberals are ahead and they are likely going to set the record for being undemocratic.

When closure was first used to end a debate it was done because debate had gone on for 42 consecutive days. That is why closure was required at that time.

The Liberals shut down the debate on the clarity bill after just 42 minutes. They shut down the debate on extending benefits to same sex partners after just one hour and six minutes. They shut down debate on the changes to the elections act, which I described earlier, after just two hours and forty minutes. It was an important bill and they let debate continue for only two hours and forty minutes. It is unbelievable. It is shameful. Stanley Knowles is turning over in his grave, I am sure. The Liberals have learned nothing from Stanley Knowles.

We should have a Stanley Knowles day. We need to celebrate the lives of those who have contributed so much to our country.

We can describe Stanley Knowles as a Canadian hero who stood for democracy in the House, who was famous for standing for the rights of elected members to debate anything they were supposed to debate. He championed the rights of the people. He left his mark on this place. It is important for future generations to know that such a man existed.

It is encouraging for young Canadians to learn of the accomplishments of a single Canadian who stood for the rights of members to debate in the House, who stood for democracy in the House. It is very inspiring for young Canadians. June 18, which was his birthdate, falls within the school year. It is a good time to establish this day, a day of remembrance and education.

I commend the hon. member for Churchill for introducing this motion to remind the House and to remind the Liberals who are asleep at the wheel that democracy is important. It will remind them how important the Canada Elections Act is, which will allow free and fair elections in this country. It will remind Liberals that free debate should be allowed in the House without debate being cut off, without turning this place into an anti-democratic institution.

Therefore, I am glad to speak in support of the motion and I wish the member the best of luck. I hope she succeeds and I hope the Liberals will learn from Stanley Knowles.

[Human Resources Development, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Aerospace Group International received a $1.3 million TJF grant to allegedly create 500 jobs in North Bay, Ontario. The project failed. The company was then given a $1.7 million interest free loan to set up in Saint-Hubert, Quebec.

Since the project in North Bay never got off the ground, will the boondoggle government be recovering the $1.3 million tax dollars lost on that grant?

[Cida, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about boondoggle number two. CIDA mismanaged nearly a billion dollars. Forty per cent of the projects failed, yet it kept throwing good money after bad. Ninety per cent of companies did not even report back to show where the money was spent. CIDA is a financial disaster.

Is it the government's goal to bungle a billion dollars in every department?