Gurmant Grewal

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the amusing speech of the NDP member, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in opposition to Bill C-9, the Liberal government's Nisga'a final agreement act.

The Leader of the Opposition who delivered the best speech in the House, as well as our critic for Indian affairs and a number of my colleagues in the Reform Party have already spoken in opposition to the passing of the bill.

All of us on this side of the House as members of the official opposition party feel compassion for the Nisga'a people. Our sole interest in the debate on this bill is to establish a new and better future for the Nisga'a people in relation to each other and to other Canadians. We understand that this agreement is all the Nisga'a people could hope to achieve.

After years and years of negotiation within a framework dictated by the Indian Act but controlled by the federal government and Indian affairs most Nisga'a leaders feel they have no alternative to this agreement and the principles on which it is based. For them it is this or nothing. We understand that. I am sad they are forced to support it.

The official opposition will oppose the bill because we do not believe the agreement is in the long range interest of the Nisga'a people, the long range interest of the British Columbian people and the long range interest of the people of Canada. We are proud that we are the only party in the House opposing the passage of the bill through the House. We want all Canadians, particularly our aboriginal brothers and sisters, to know and remember that. History will absolve us.

Although we are alone in our opposition in the House, outside the House we have support from academics, legal experts, aboriginals and many others including the government's own B.C. Liberal cousins, the B.C. Liberal Party. All Liberals do not think alike, if they ever do.

They are all warning about the flaws in this treaty. They are warning about the impact of this treaty on future and present treaties with our aboriginal people. Almost 90% of the constituents of the seven members of the Liberal Party who represent B.C. do not support their position on the Nisga'a treaty.

The Reform's position is that this agreement contradicts one of the key founding principles of the Reform Party, namely that we believe in true equality for 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 both on and off reserve. The Nisga'a final agreement does not meet these requirements.

It took years and this agreement was created behind closed doors. The B.C. government denied the people of B.C. a referendum on whether to accept the treaty. There was very little public input. The B.C. government passed the agreement through the provincial legislature by invoking closure on the debate before it was completed. The NDP government of B.C. which supported this agreement is on its way out.

It appears that the federal Liberal government will pass the agreement through this House regardless of how much debate is allowed.

There will be many injustices caused by this precedent setting treaty. Our future generations will not forgive this Liberal government for passing this treaty. It is the same Liberal government that refuses to listen to the critical reports of the auditor general.

How do we differ from the government? Unlike the Liberals, we believe that many of the impacts of the Nisga'a agreement will be negative. The fiscal impacts will be negative. The resource management impacts will be negative, like those of the Marshall case, and the impact on aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations will be negative.

The underlying approach to aboriginal government and economic development ratified by this bill is absolutely wrong. The underlying principles are defective and will not lead to the desired ends. An entirely different approach to aboriginal self-government and economic development based on better principles is desperately needed for the 21st century.

No one is proud of the system. No one is proud of the approach or the track record of the government in terms of tackling poverty, illness, violence, family breakdown, shortened lifespans and the despair that has been caused for thousands of people.

The unemployment, mortality, illiteracy, suicide and incarceration rates on reserve among aboriginal people, particularly young people, are the consequences of the legacy of 130 years of Liberal and Tory governments. Of course there are some exceptions. Some bands have a high standard of living. Some individuals have made progress. However, these are the exceptions rather than the rule. They have succeeded in spite of the system, not because of it.

There are three problems with the Liberal approach to aboriginal agreements. The big problem is the special status granted to aboriginals based on race; not based on need, but based on race. That is what status Indian means and it is defined in statute. That status denies aboriginals many of the political and economic tools available to other Canadians, from responsible self-government to all the tools of the marketplace and private enterprise for economic development. That status builds barriers rather than bridges between aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian community.

The second defect of the current approach is that it provides for undemocratic and unaccountable governments. The current approach to aboriginal political development fails to demand or to provide genuine fiscal and democratic accountability from local aboriginal governments. The federal government has failed to provide responsible government for aboriginals in either the fiscal or democratic sense at the local level.

The third problem is aboriginal economic development. The Liberals and the Tories have based this on socialist economics, collective ownership of land and resources, government ownership of land and resources, and excessive regulation of every economic activity on Nisga'a land.

Today we have the impact of the Delgamuukw decision by the courts that puts a lien on virtually every acre of land in British Columbia.

Another example is the chaos created in the east coast fishery by one supreme court decision based on an interpretation of the faulty approach to economic development.

Now we have the Nisga'a agreement that is based on 19th century thinking instead of a 21st century approach.

This agreement proposes laws that will override federal and provincial law. The taxation regime perpetuates special status based on ethnicity. It perpetuates access to resources based on race. These elements will lead to nothing but conflict.

The mistakes the government is making today will produce effects in the years to come. Future generations will not forgive. The help our aboriginal people need should be based on their needs and wants, not race. We have recognized those needs. Based on those needs we have to help our aboriginal brothers and sisters. Many years down the road we will face dire consequences if we treat people based on race and not need.

[Public Servants, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our federal public servants to raise their concerns about wrongdoing, corruption and waste in our government. There are numerous complaints about corruption in our foreign missions, and allegations regarding immigration fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking.

Our hard-working and caring federal employees have nowhere to turn except to pass on their information in a brown envelope. There is no incentive or motivation for these people to speak out. In fact, I have numerous examples where they are punished, their careers are ruined and even the health of the whistleblowers and their families are affected.

Canadians want our public servants to be not only protected, but rewarded for uncovering and putting a stop to waste and corruption. Canadians know that this government does not protect our civil servants. I will soon be introducing a private member's bill to protect and reward whistleblowers.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during question period last Friday, I asked why the government was promoting the Nisga'a treaty that abolishes equal opportunity.

The Liberals have fixed it so that success in our country is now based on race. Hard work is no longer the factor that determines how successful one can be making a living in forestry, fishing or mining.

The government has quashed the principle of equality with the Nisga'a treaty. It is assigning democratic rights according to race not based on needs. Canadians find that offensive and an attack on the very foundation of our country. Equality is at the core of what it is to be Canadian.

Imagine my surprise when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans jumped gleefully to his feet to address my question. Hansard shows that his carrying on required the Speaker to ask for calm. In his blathering, the fisheries minister attacked, with rhetoric and misinformation, the Sikhs willing to join the RCMP. What a peculiar notion. Where does he get this stuff from? As a Sikh, I find his remarks offensive. As a Sikh himself, the minister should apologize.

At the Reform Party convention in 1996, the Reform Party passed a resolution supporting a change in the dress code of our RCMP. The fisheries minister, like his government, is living in the past. He should be kept up to date. If he was up to date, he would know that he was wrong about the Reform Party policy.

Later the same day during question period, I rose again and asked point blank why the fisheries minister supported a treaty that segregates Canadians and creates inequality. I informed him that the Reform Party believed in the equality of all Canadians, and that was why, as a Sikh member of the party, I was living proof. The Reform Party of Canada has more members representing ethnic minorities than any other party in the House.

Finally, I challenged the minister to a debate on the Nisga'a treaty in Vancouver, B.C. If the Nisga'a agreement is so representative of the Liberals' position on equality, why does the minister not debate the issue with me? By the minister's refusal, it is obvious to me that he is uncomfortable with the government's bill on the Nisga'a agreement. The Liberal government's bill on the Nisga'a agreement creates inequality for aboriginal women and maintains band control over individual property rights, among other important issues.

After my second question, the Speaker of the House gave the minister an out by saying that the minister did not have to respond, and the minister chickened out again. He refused to answer my challenge. Instead, he attacked me personally based on my religion. He should apologize.

Is he refusing to debate me? I do not know. What is he afraid of? I have no clue. I again ask: Why is the government promoting the Nisga'a treaty that abolishes equal opportunity for all Canadians?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Sikh and I am living proof that the Reform Party believes in equality.

Why does the fisheries minister support policies that segregate Canadians and create inequality? I challenge the fisheries minister to debate equality and the Nisga'a treaty with me in Vancouver.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, assigning democratic rights according to race is offensive. The government is attacking the very foundation of our country. Equality of opportunity is at the core of what it is to be Canadian.

The government has quashed the principle of equality with the Nisga'a treaty. No longer will hard work be the determining factor of whether or not one can make a living in forestry, fishing or mining. Now success will be based on race.

Why is the government promoting a treaty that abolishes equality of opportunity?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that as we are entering the new millennium we want to build a strong bridge between this millennium and the next millennium where all of us can progress toward safety and freedom of expression and thus create a society where all of us can live peacefully. To do that the government has to get it right. The government has to have measures in place. Someone who commits a crime must serve the time. If someone commits a crime but does not serve the time, where is the justice?

The hon. member of the government should ask his justice minister to make the appropriate amendments quickly. This bill should only pass when all the amendments wanted by Canadians are made.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, either the separatist member does not understand, or he did not listen to what I was saying. We on this side of the House are differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders. We also emphasize the importance of prevention and rehabilitation.

The fact is there is no appropriate punishment when the punishment by the court is only a minor slap on the wrist. That indicates to our youth that there is no deterrent to commit crime. They do not understand the importance of not committing a crime. There is motivation to commit a crime because there is no punishment.

If there is severe or appropriate or reasonable punishment for someone who commits a crime, this will put fear into potential criminals. There is a deterrent for them. The hon. member should understand that.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for over 10 years Reform members have been calling for reforms to the youth criminal justice system. It has taken at least four years, more like six years, for the Liberals to reach the point where we are at today.

In terms of changing our youth criminal justice system, it has been 864 days since the current justice minister was appointed to her cabinet position. Ever since, she has been saying that she would change the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. I do not know what is timely about 864 days. We know that 35 violent crimes are committed each day in Canada and 864 days is a long time for my constituents and all Canadians.

How many violent crimes committed by youth could have been prevented in the last three years if the government had provided youth crime legislation sooner rather than later? The Liberals spent millions of dollars, had months of hearings and promised for years that it was coming.

Extensive committee hearings were held on the bill last spring, yet the government allowed the changes to our youth criminal justice system to die before third reading in the last session of parliament. That is an indication of how unimportant this bill is to the Liberals.

Now we have Bill C-3, the government's proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act, that will create a new youth criminal justice system. Now we are back in the House debating at second reading stage of the bill. It has a new number but it is the same old bill.

The parents and families of the victims of youth crime become victims too. I have two young sons, Mr. Speaker. You met with my younger son when he was here. When I put myself in the shoes of the hon. member for Surrey North whose family has gone through a tragedy, and when I put myself in the shoes of the parents and families of victims, I feel like going home every weekend. I worry because the government is not doing enough. I can hardly imagine what it must be like when a young person is a victim of a violent crime.

The reforms to the Young Offenders Act called for by the public and advocated by Reform have been numerous in detail but the most substantive reforms can be grouped under eight categories which I will discuss. There is clarification of the purpose of the act; strengthening parental responsibility; recognition of victims rights; the provision of support services for victims; stronger differentiation between violent repeat offenders and non-violent first time offenders; strengthening sentencing provisions; publication of the names of young offenders; changes to the age of application in the Young Offenders Act; and provisions for rehabilitation and prevention.

To be fair, there are some positive changes offered in the proposals before us but there are areas in which we feel the government has been inadequate or misguided. We must continue to urge constructive alternatives and amendments to the act.

The first category is clarification of the purpose of the act. The old juvenile delinquents act made it clear that its primary purpose was the welfare of society, whereas the Young Offenders Act introduced by the Trudeau government focused more on the welfare of the young offender.

One of the commendable features of the bill is clause 3.1. It states that the principal goal of the youth criminal justice system is to protect the public, a protection to be pursued through the prevention of youth crime through the punishment of convicted offenders and through efforts to rehabilitate. That is progress.

The official opposition has been carrying the flashlight for the Liberals who have been walking in that direction. I am happy that at least they got that right. However, the bill does not go as far as Reformers would like. The Liberals have not seen the full light of day yet.

With respect to reforming parental responsibility, the bill contains at least two steps in the right direction. It requires compulsory attendance of a parent at court if it is considered by the judge to be in the best interest of the young person. It increases the penalty for a parent who signs a court undertaking to supervise a young person upon release and who wilfully fails to fulfil that obligation.

The third category is the recognition of victims rights. Victims of youth crime are frustrated by the government's lack of concern for them. The bill before us contains several provisions that represent a step in the right direction. For example, clause 52 has the provision to order a surcharge to be levied on any fine payable by a young person. I assume these funds are to be used to provide assistance to victims of offences.

Clause 113 permits a youth justice court, a review board or any court to keep a record of proceedings of young persons.

Clause 118 permits victims access to the clause 113 records.

Clause 39 states that the pre-sentence report is to include the results of an interview with the victim.

These measures fall far short of the demands of the official opposition, supported by this House, for a full-blown victims bill of rights. My colleague, the member of parliament for Langley—Abbotsford has already spoken on this. I commend him for being the champion on the victims bill of rights. On the other hand, the minister and her government still assign a low priority to victims rights in relation to the rights granted to persons accused or convicted of crimes.

The fourth, fifth and sixth areas of concern to the public and on which we consider the provisions of this bill to be inadequate, are the provisions pertaining to the differentiation of violent offenders from non-violent offenders, the sentencing of young offenders and publishing or prohibiting the publication of the names of the young offenders.

It is the position of the official opposition that a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders are locked up. This limits the space and resources needed for violent offenders. It increases rather than reduces the probability that these young people will be drawn into a life of crime rather than being protected and liberated from criminal influences.

We have consequently advocated a stronger differentiation both in law and in treatment between violent and non-violent young offenders and between first time and repeat offenders. We advocate a stronger differentiation than what is in the bill we are debating today.

On tougher sentencing, I believe strongly that our punishment to criminals is just a slap on the wrist. Appropriate punishment creates fear. That fear acts as a deterrent to any violent crime. On the other hand, if there is no fear and no punishment, that acts as a motivation to commit a crime. At this time when there is not adequate punishment, that acts as a motivation for young people to commit crime.

In conclusion, the bill contains a few steps in the right direction, but falls far short of what we wanted to see in the bill. We want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals do not want that. With respect to the bill's provisions for differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders, its provisions for the sentencing of young offenders and its provisions for publishing the names of young offenders, we find there are major deficiencies. With respect to changing the age of application of the Young Offenders Act, we think the government's approach is wrong.

Finally, the government has not gone far enough with measures concerning the treatment of young offenders, namely, the importance of prevention and the crucial role of the family with respect to youth crime prevention.

[Foreign Affairs, October 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister has no business calling for Pakistan to be expelled from the Commonwealth following the military takeover.

Last year the sanctions were counterproductive. The people of Pakistan knew the government was corrupt. No one supports military coups. However, since the military took over, there has been calm and peace in the country. Parliament has not been dissolved. The president still holds office. Fundamental rights are in place. There is no bloodshed and no martial law. The nuclear and missile restraint policy continues. The military has promised to return the country to democratic civilian rule as soon as possible.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs does not practise what he preaches. He does not clean up corruption in his own department, embassies and passport offices. He bent over backward to support Suharto. He continued foreign aid to Algeria after the military interfered with the democratic election process. He condemned the U.S.A. for isolating Cuba. His policies are inconsistent and hypocritical. He talks soft power but applies hard power. The foreign—

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in opposition to the government's scheme to torpedo Bill C-2 through the House.

This bill proposes changes to the Canada Elections Act. It is a very important bill for our democracy.

As my colleagues, the hon. members for North Vancouver and Calgary West, have already pointed out, this bill was examined in committee during the first session of this parliament. Yet, the contents of the bill being introduced today prove that the Liberals have ignored the witnesses who appeared before the committee. It is as if there had been no committee hearings at all with respect to this bill.

Normally bills before the House are sent to committee for study after the debate at second reading has taken place. Because the government could not get this bill passed in the first session, is it reintroducing it and sending it to the committee immediately, where it can secretly amend it? Or, is it to prevent the bill from being amended as a result of having no debate at second reading?

This bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of the Canada Elections Act, especially those that benefit the ruling party, in this case the Liberal Party. Our elections should be democratic, free and fair, offering equal opportunity to all candidates and all parties.

Canadians have been asking for changes to the way we elect our federal government representatives. With this bill we see clearly that the Liberals have once again failed to respond to the wishes of Canadians. What a great way to start the second session of parliament.

This week the Liberal government that lacks vision is being particularly undemocratic with Bill C-2. The government has wasted an opportunity to modernize and democratize the Canada Elections Act. Specifically, it has failed to deliver changes to a number of things; for example, patronage appointments, party registration requirements, campaign financing, third party spending issues, the reimbursement of election expenses, voter ID and the timing of elections and byelections.

In the short time I have to speak on this bill I will say a few words about some of these areas.

Let us talk about patronage appointments. Under the current elections act the system of patronage allows parties to appoint people to positions. Returning officers are political appointees. The returning officers appoint their own assistants, poll clerks and others. This is a way of rewarding the party faithful, which has no place in our electoral system. It is outrageous in what is supposed to be a non-partisan, impartial and neutral electoral organization.

Elections Canada always recommends against a patronage ridden system when it helps developing nations set up their electoral system. Yet, the Liberals are maintaining the system because it benefits them. They go out to preach what they do not practise at home.

Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to release it from the patronage system and allow it to hire its own staff for elections by advertising and interviewing based on ability, merit and experience. Many Reform MPs have insisted in the past that these appointed positions be advertised in newspapers for staffing instead of filling these positions as patronage appointments.

The chief electoral officer's report on the 36th general election made the same recommendations as we have been proposing on this side of the House. Opposition MPs on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs supported this position, but the Liberals opposed it, proving that the government's position is politically motivated in what should be a non-partisan situation.

The third party spending limit is proposed to be $150,000 during a federal general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be spent on any particular riding. We believe that it is not the place of government to limit the rights of individual Canadians, or group of Canadians, to spend their money in support of a cause or a candidate in federal elections.

Far from levelling the playing field the Liberals are challenging the hallmarks of our democracy. For example, the ruling Liberal party has free broadcasting time based on the number of members of parliament it has, far and beyond what any other party is allowed to have. Have the Liberals changed that situation with this bill? No, absolutely not. This would give a huge advantage to the Liberals by restricting the ability of any other person or group to counter government propaganda during an election.

Let us talk about the requirements for registered party status. The elections act requires a political party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain a party on the ballot. The courts in Ontario say that only two candidates are needed to form a party. It is the voters, not the government, who should decide whether a party or a candidate is worthy of their vote. It is up to the voters, not the government. This is an attempt by the government to hinder the formation and growth of new parties like the Reform Party. The government is actually trying to limit competition on the ballot. It is undemocratic. It is anti-democratic. The government should be ashamed.

Regarding voter identification, currently, when there is doubt about a voter's identity or right to vote, that person may be asked for proof of identification, or the voter can be asked to swear an oath. That is absolutely ridiculous. If someone is evil enough to try to commit fraud in an election, surely we can assume that the same person would have no problem swearing an oath, lying to God or to himself.

Regarding electronic voting, the Liberal government is ignoring the realities of the information age in denying us the use of electronic voting methods that are more efficient, less costly and more universally accessible voting systems. In Ontario electronic council elections can be run for one-sixth of the normal cost.

Let us talk about the reimbursement of a party's election expenses. The Liberals allow reimbursement of campaign expenses and then restrict eligibility for reimbursement to certain parties. What is going on here? There should be no reimbursement at all to any candidate or any party.

Bill C-2 retains the requirement for a candidate to deposit $1,000. The candidate's deposit should be much lower, in the interest of encouraging Canadians to participate regardless of their financial position.

In conclusion, there are many other areas where the bill could be criticized as undemocratic, including the lack of fixed dates for federal elections, the timing of byelections, government advertising or propaganda before an election, and others, but time prevents me from commenting on these matters.

I would like to read an e-mail from one of my constituents. Bill Lawton states: “All in all I feel this is just an affront to democracy. This bill is really draconian and not relevant to the democratic citizenry”. My constituents know all about the bill. It is manipulation by the power hungry government in power. It is nothing less than dictatorship, worse than even the military government in Pakistan. Let alone scandals, it is enough to call this government corrupt. It is a crime in broad daylight. The government must amend Bill C-2 and restore democracy in Canada. If this bill goes through in its present form Canadian voters should refuse to vote Liberal in the next election.