Gurmant Grewal

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 08, 2004 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on February 07, 2004 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 19, 2006 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 323

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Section 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 4, 2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 309

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 09, 2005 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Canada Labour Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on this private members' bill brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois member for Laurentides.

This bill seeks to ban the so-called orphan clauses or grandfather clauses from being included in collective agreements bargained for under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the federal Public Service Staff Relations Act.

These clauses allow older workers or senior workers and long time employees to keep their acquired rights and privileges such as hours or pay rates. These clauses are needed whenever a new collective agreement is reached which changes the previous conditions of employment.

The problem that is created with this is that new and mostly young workers begin a job that, for example, pays less in the new agreement than it did in the old. It could be that an employee who has been with a company for 10 years is making more money than a new employee doing the same job. This would happen if a 10 year veteran had his or her pay rate from a previous collective agreement protected in a subsequent collective agreement that applies to a new employee coming on to the job after that new agreement takes effect.

This is the problem that the hon. member is trying to address. At face value it seems a noble pursuit. She is fighting a seemingly discriminatory two-tiered wage scheme. If the workers who are generally young people start at lower rates, it can take longer for them to catch up. I believe that these things should be worked out at the bargaining table during collective agreement negotiations between the employer and the employees.

For the benefit of those who are listening, Reform Party policy on employment and labour management relations states:

A. The Reform Party supports the right of workers to organize democratically, to bargain collectively, and to strike peacefully.

B. The Reform Party supports the harmonization of labour-management relations, and rejects the view that labour and management must constitute warring camps.

C. The Reform Party supports the right of all Canadians, particularly the young, to enter the work force and achieve their potential. Unions and professional bodies may ensure standards but should not block qualified people from working or from gaining the necessary qualifications.

Among other things regarding labour relations and collective bargaining, this is what the grassroots members of our party have written as our policy.

I commend the hon. member for bringing Bill C-212 before the House. She has no doubt done a great deal of work on her bill. I asked her office to provide me with further information, further to the bill itself, for my information, knowledge and use in preparing to speak today. But the member refused. She told her assistant to tell my assistant that she would not provide me with explanatory notes or any other information related to the bill. This was most peculiar. Why the secrecy?

At any rate, I did my own research on this bill. I have spoken with Labour Canada and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. I contacted the Action démocratique Québec in the Quebec legislature and I have done research including a search of the media to find out what other people are saying about this issue and this bill.

This bill is similar to Bill 67 introduced by the Quebec separatist government.

This explains why the hon. member is bringing this matter before the House. She wants the federal government to apply the same laws that the Quebec separatists are going to apply in their province.

The separatist government in Quebec tried to pass this legislation before the last Quebec provincial election but it failed. It is trying to pass it again and it is having problems again.

Consultations were held throughout Quebec. Employers were accused of not treating young people fairly and unions were accused of bargaining for less favourable working conditions for young people.

A report prepared by the Quebec labour department and tabled by the Quebec labour minister in the Quebec legislature says that if Quebec passes the law it will cost thousands of jobs. I might add that the Quebec media reported that the labour minister tabled the report without even knowing if it concluded that these jobs would be lost. Not only does this uncover the incompetence of the separatist minister, but it also points to the difficulties of accomplishing what this bill is trying to do.

It is no wonder that one is hard pressed to find any other jurisdiction that has this legislation. This legislation is not found anywhere because it is not needed. Even if we give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and try to justify the federal government becoming involved in the collective bargaining process, we find that we would place the government in the position of micro-managing things. These kinds of policies lead to a crippled, ineffective government.

We are trying to remedy a phenomenon that took place in the 1980s. The recession caused two tier wage schemes to be adopted as a means of fighting the economic recession and saved jobs from being lost. These two tiered systems were not resorted to everywhere, and where they were, we hope they will be negotiated away by the arrival of the new millennium.

The stagnant Quebec economy, almost entirely ruined and soon to be entirely ruined by the minority separatist movement, appears to be continuing to suffer from the two tier wage scheme. This is to be lamented. Jobs in Quebec are indeed extremely valuable.

The separatists should learn from this debate. They should learn that in their economy there have been unique problems because of the political separatist movement. Their economy cannot grow because investors do not want to risk their money in a place that could plunge into turmoil and chaos at any time.

Problems that are at least 20 years old continue to persist as the separatist political leaders stubbornly continue on their mission at the expense of workers and young Quebecers. It is sad, but true.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with the Nisga'a treaty the Liberals are creating the third tier of government, based on ethnicity. By trying to amend the constitution through the back door this weak Liberal government is creating permanent inequality. It is disenfranchising non-Nisga'a people. It insists on segregating our aboriginal people with agreements based on race.

Is this the reason it is trying to shut up the people of B.C. by not holding a referendum?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, British Columbia to speak at report stage of Bill C-9, the legislation which will implement the Nisga'a agreement.

For the people of Surrey, British Columbia and Canada who are listening, and for the sake of the record, I point out that the previous Liberal speaker, the member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, in response to a committee hearing in B.C., pointed out that if it was not for the Reform Party of Canada the committee would not have held hearings in B.C. This is the same member who said that the committee hearings in B.C. were a dog and pony show. That shows the arrogance of Liberals.

We are considering hundreds of amendments which my colleagues and I in the official opposition have introduced in our effort to change the bill. We are standing on behalf of aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians who know that this treaty, the treaty process and the bill are seriously flawed, and who want to avoid the many problems that will result if the Liberals have their way and pass the bill in its present form.

I must add, as I did in my speech on the bill at second reading, because I want the record to clearly show, that the Reform Party is the only party in the House opposed to the bill. Reformers are the only members talking about the problems that will be created. We are the only members standing for Canadians and the Nisga'a people who have been forced to accept this treaty because, after decades of effort, this is all they will get. They are having to satisfy themselves with what is in this treaty, and the Liberals are in a conspiracy with other parties in the House to force the treaty on the Nisga'a people.

It was the B.C. provincial Liberal Party which opposed the bill, while the soon to be ousted NDP government in B.C. rammed it through the B.C. legislature. The process the bill has gone through is a democratic travesty. Democracy is not only marking an x on a ballot every four years; democracy is the continuous representation of the people, with continuous input from Canadians on all the decision making which affects them.

The Liberals across Canada are confused about the bill. They are in conflict over the bill. The Reform Party is the only party in the House that has a vision for the future. That is why we are the only members with the guts to raise the concerns being whispered by so many Canadians.

No one wants to offend the Nisga'a people or criticize their treaty. When we talk about the Nisga'a treaty we are not talking against the Nisga'a people. As a matter of fact, it is a tragedy that no other party in the House is acknowledging that the history of the government's treatment of the Nisga'a people is shameful. No other party in the House is admitting that this treaty is a very poor attempt to make up for the way the Nisga'a people have been treated and what they have lost over the course of decades. Most importantly, the Nisga'a will face a tough future as a result of this treaty.

The Liberals are continuing to deny the Nisga'a an equal partnership in Canada and full citizenship in our great country. This treaty will maintain their segregation. It tries to buy them off with millions of dollars in cash. There are many problems with the treaty which my colleagues will address.

I have put forward and seconded amendments on behalf of the people of Surrey Central, the official opposition and those people in B.C. and Canada who feel strongly that the Liberals are making a big mistake with Bill C-9. They are concerned with the coming into force of Bill C-9, knowing that the Liberals and other parties in the House will not likely permit amendments to be made to the bill in this concerted dictatorship that is being passed off as debate.

We have provided hundreds of opportunities for the government to rethink its position and delay the passage of the bill. We proposed the delay of the clauses of the bill which deal with the Nisga'a final agreement itself, the moneys to be paid out of the federal government's consolidated revenue fund and the taxation regime that will be created.

It is the intention of these amendments to allow time for the Government of Canada to wake up to what the lawyers, constitutional experts, historians and many other learned people are saying about the problems with Bill C-9.

I also hope that by forcing a time delay in the coming into force of the bill the Nisga'a people, by their own means or by any other means, can manage a better deal. I do not mean more cash, more land or resource rights based on race, but based on need. I refer to a better deal that provides a good blueprint for future negotiations with aboriginals that satisfies all Canadians.

Our sole interest in this issue is to establish a new and better future for the Nisga'a people in their relationships with each other and other Canadians. We understand that this agreement is all the Nisga'a people could hope to achieve. After years of negotiation, most Nisga'a leaders feel they have no alternative to this agreement and the principles on which it is based. We understand that. For them it is this or nothing. I am sad that they are forced to support it.

Rather than addressing the problems of our natives, our governments pretended that the problems did not exist and they hoped they would go away. Now, rather than addressing the problems appropriately, the government is going to make a serious blunder, a serious mistake. Two wrongs can never make a right. What we get is a double wrong. That is what we are doing in Canada through the courtesy of the Liberal government.

The magnitude of the consequences of the Nisga'a treaty may be so great that it will have the potential to spark a big fire of violence and threaten the peace, harmony and prosperity of our nation.

This agreement contradicts one of the key founding principles of the Reform Party, namely that we believe in the true equality of Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for all. We want equality for all Canadians. We want a new start for aboriginal people in Canada. We want them to be full and equal participants in Canadian society, with the same rights and protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners on and off Indian reserves.

The Nisga'a final agreement does not meet these requirements. The treaty is not a perfect document because it is based on compromise and race, rather than on consultation and need. The flawed treaty process is driven by history. There is a need to undo the mistakes of past Liberal and Tory governments, but historians have not been included.

I would also point out that treaties, like diamonds, are forever. That is why it is folly for negotiators to assume omniscience and produce voluminous treaties that attempt to cover every eventuality. What if the public attitude on these issues changes over time? Treaties should be based on need, not race. That is why the Nisga'a deal should be subject to the broadest and most careful public scrutiny.

Therefore, to not let British Columbians in on the deal, essentially negotiated in secret only after the initial ceremony and then told by those in authority that no change will be considered, is the height of Liberal arrogance. This is simply unacceptable. Every opportunity should be given to all Canadians to have their input. We are asking for a referendum on this treaty, which is so important to all Canadians, to maintain peace, harmony and prosperity in Canada.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He is such a good speaker and he was going to say such a good thing about the Nisga'a treaty, but I do not see any Liberals except for two who are listening to the debate. I would like to call quorum.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to the Bloc supply day motion that calls on the House to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the issue of organized crime, to analyse avenues available to parliament to combat these criminals, and to report back to the House by October 31, 2000.

Today the government side of the House is being forced by the opposition to discuss organized crime. We will see how little it will do, if anything. The people of Surrey Central are anxious to do something about organized crime and its effect on our country, our cities, our region, our children, and many other aspects of our lives.

The weak Liberal government that has no vision and no political will keeps our criminal justice system weak. There are less and less resources, money and effort going to our law enforcement community. We can clearly see this in Surrey. We feel the effects of the scarce resources of the RCMP which is trying to preserve and protect our communities.

The immigration minister tells the Prime Minister to adopt a new slogan. The motto is that Canada is the place to be. The Prime Minister brags about that. There is no political will on Liberal benches to give B.C. and the rest of Canada the RCMP services that are needed. Because of this, international criminals know that Canada is the number one country and the place to be.

The Liberals already know that organized crime has a great effect on our country. There is no need to study it. Illegal migrants arrive at our airports and on our coasts. They are brought here by organized criminals, and the Liberals do nothing about it.

They do nothing about corruption in our embassies. When it comes to filtering out criminals our embassies are just like sieves. In Hong Kong 2,000 visas were stolen. Are gentle people stealing them and using them? No, it is organized crime. It is criminals who stole the visas and used them to bring over 2,000 criminals into Canada, and the Liberals do nothing about it.

I did something about it when my constituents told me about corruption at the embassies at New Delhi and Islamabad. Legitimate immigrants were harassed while criminals were buying their way into Canada.

I got results. Was I lucky? No. I did the work. I had the political will to get to the bottom of these allegations of crime and corruption on behalf of the people I was elected to represent.

I took action on their behalf. I went to the RCMP. They were glad to work with me and they did a good job. People were fired as a result of my efforts and the corruption was cleaned up, for a while at least.

The Liberals keep the RCMP starved of resources: money, equipment and personnel. The Liberals do it with our military as well. They starve our emergency preparedness, too. The Liberals leave only four officers patrolling the B.C.-Washington border near my constituency. Our ports and docks are understaffed.

Perhaps only 5% of containers are inspected at the Vancouver port, but many of them contain drugs and other things being smuggled for organized crime. The Liberals are not serious about fighting organized crime. If they were they would dispatch the military on a special two-day mission to open the 95% of containers that have not been inspected. Let us get to work.

We know that there are refugee claimants on our streets selling drugs. We know they have been arrested, but the police tell us they are back on the street within hours, or at least the next day, after being slightly slapped on the wrist. Why does the government not do something about it? It is a shame.

Third world people are being enslaved into a life of crime. They are being sent to the U.S. via Canada. What do the Liberals do about it? Nothing. The CIA and the FBI in the U.S. are furious about what is happening in Canada. They are furious about our Prime Minister because he is cutting budgets, dragging his feet and not upholding Canada's part in fighting crime in North America.

The government knows about money laundering operations in our country. Organized crime has built a very large, multibillion dollar underground economy. The weak Liberal government has done nothing about it.

Last week the newspapers published 10 ways to launder money and those are the 10 ways the Liberals have refused to prevent money laundering.

As a former credit union director, I know that our federal government is not doing enough to help prevent fraud through our financial institutions. There are many areas where the government has dropped the ball on combating organized crime, including industrial espionage, white collar crime, national security risks and others.

The Liberal government should have introduced legislation to protect the rights of civil servants who come forward to expose corruption in government. It should have done this long ago. In other countries the legal rights of public servants who blow the whistle are protected. They are rewarded. In Canada we need at least to protect the public servants who report, in good faith, evidence of wrongdoing. They should not be subject to disciplinary action, as the government has shown in the last few years.

Canada needs a mechanism for our public servants to follow when they detect wrongdoing, including mismanagement, misleading information, cover-ups and other things like the issue we are debating today.

I will soon be putting forward a bill for the government to support that will protect and reward whistleblowers. The purpose of the act will be to establish a procedure and provide appropriate rewards and incentives for whistleblowing. Everyone knows about the work of Brian McAdam, who exposed corruption in our Hong Kong embassy.

The sidewinder investigation should certainly be of value and in the best interests of Canadians. My hon. colleague has already spoken about it. For three months Fabian Dawson, a Canadian journalist working out of B.C., has been publishing articles chronicling corruption in our federal government's overseas missions.

We commend these Canadians for their work, but where is the government? Where are the Liberals? Why do the Liberals not investigate what Fabian is writing about? Why do they not help him? Why will they not take action when our media uncovers things through good journalistic investigation?

Today we are looking for answers to the problem of organized crime. What can parliament do? It is easy. The people of Surrey and all Canadians know how easy it is. Contrary to the motion we are debating, there is no need to study this problem. We already know the answers. Parliament can legislate tougher penalties. Parliament can provide whistleblowers with protection and rewards so that they can come forward with the evidence of corruption, exposing the techniques and modus operandi of organized criminals and gangs like the triads.

Rather than this weak Liberal government listening to them and taking appropriate action, rewarding whistleblowers like Brian McAdam and Corporal Read, it tries to shut them up and muzzle them while intimidating and threatening them. This weak government should see to it that the laws which are already in our statute books are enforced. The government can do that by providing our law enforcement community with what it needs to get the job done.

In Surrey the RCMP is always short of staff, equipment, time and resources. There is no reason for that except that the Liberals are starving the force of what it needs. We are the fastest growing community in Canada and this government is starving our city of police protection from organized crime. It is a shame.

I ask this weak Liberal government to wake up. Rather than sitting on its hands, looking like an empty bag, it should get tough on organized crime and send a strong message to criminals around the world on behalf of the people of Surrey, B.C. and all Canadians. It should tell those criminals that Canada is not the place to be.