Gurmant Grewal

[Business Of The House, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As far as the procedure of the House is concerned, so far as I am aware, the Thursday question is asked by the official opposition. Last time I noticed that there was another Thursday question asked. If that is the case, I would also like to ask the government House leader that if Bill C-49 does not finish, how long will it go on, and how long will the MSLA take?

[Business Of The House, June 3rd, 1999]

A point of order.

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier I heard the hon. member for York Centre, the Minister of National Defence, mention in his speech that all parties in the House are supporting this motion except the Reform Party. That is not true. I would like to put it on the record that the statement was supposed to be the other way around.

[Health, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Motion No. 468 brought forth by the Liberal member for Ottawa Centre. The motion calls on the government to recognize multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia as illnesses that have the capacity to cause disability.

The Liberal member wants his government to recognize that Canadians suffering the disability aspects of these diseases require protection and a strong moral commitment to their well-being. My constituents and I find this amazing: here is a Liberal backbencher begging cabinet to learn to recognize Canadians suffering from these diseases.

Let us look at the three things the motion asks the Liberals to do: recognize these diseases as disabling diseases, give these victims protection, and make a strong moral commitment to the well-being of the victims.

Canadians know that the Liberals will do none of these things. The Liberals have cut $23 billion from our health care system since 1993. The government will not be providing any protection for Canadians who are sick. They have already seriously reduced such protections.

The government makes no moral commitments to Canadians who are sick. The Liberal backbench MPs were weeping openly in the House; they were crying and tears were coming out of their eyes when they voted not to compensate victims of federal government controlled tainted blood.

As I have said, the Liberals cut $23 billion from the health care system. Now we have a Liberal asking the House to try to force the government to do something about Canadians who are sick. The member has chosen only a few diseases for his motion. Some 20 other diseases could be added to the list by any Canadian. Why is the member so selective?

What about the organ donor transplant system? The government could have done very simple and basic things to immediately save the lives of Canadians waiting for organ transplants.

I ask the House to imagine a very small bedridden children crying. They need medical help. They could need a new kidney. Members of the government lazily drag their feet while little children, teenagers, young Canadians, mothers and fathers suffer waiting for a transplant or death.

We have a three tier health care system in Canada, courtesy of the Liberal government and courtesy of the defence minister. First, we have a waiting list system. Second, we have a system where those who are rich can go to the United States and get immediate treatment for whatever ails them. Third, we have a system which I call the sickness system.

There is no money from the government to protect the health of Canadians. The only time Canadians can try to contact our health care system is when they are already sick.

The Liberals should be ashamed. They owe Canadians an apology for creating this mess in our health care system in the first place. It is because of them that 6,000 nurses and 1,400 doctors left Canada last year alone. It is because of them that 200,000 Canadians are on waiting lists for various treatments. I could go on and on and on.

The government has lost control over the levels of pesticides found in our fruits and vegetables. About two dozen genetically engineered food products are already on our shelves. The Health Department has been stripped of the responsibility to monitor food safety. That responsibility has been given to the agriculture department, which is like a fox minding the chicken coop.

There is no money for these things in our health care system because the government has cut all the money it could. It has cut $23 billion from health and other services. I could go on and on. Yet we have the member for Ottawa Centre crying crocodile tears on the floor of the House with the motion. I hope the Environmental Illness Society is listening very carefully to the debate.

The government member is not fooling anyone while he pretends to do something for Canadians suffering from these diseases. Where can he get money for the undefined protection he wants to offer Canadians with these few specific diseases?

The Liberals already voted against compensating hepatitis C victims. They voted to keep high taxes and supported a $23 billion cut to the health care system. They supported a $30 billion grab by the government from the pension plans of public servants, RCMP and other public service employees.

Why can some of that $30 billion not be spent on the initiatives the hon. member is talking about? The Liberal government does not even recognize Canadians suffering from these diseases. His cabinet colleagues will not provide Canadians living with the challenges of disabling diseases protection and a strong moral commitment to their well-being. That is what he has admitted by submitting the motion. The motion is evidence that he has been unable to convince his own colleagues to support it.

I can prove that in the official opposition benches on this side of the House we have compassion and vision. We would not let the health minister close the file and abandon hepatitis C victims. We forced the Liberal health minister to reopen the file.

We on this side of the House also have vision. We would not have chosen to close the hepatitis C file because we know that Canadians who are compassionate people would want to help these innocent victims. These Canadians were sick from tainted blood given to them by the federal government that may even have obtained the blood from prisoners in Bill Clinton town.

The majority of Canadians would not want these people who are fighting for their lives to go through our court system. They are not strong enough. The Liberal government should be held accountable for not compensating them. We on this side of the House are ashamed of the Liberal government's health record.

The government is denying Canadians freedom to choose natural health products. Canadians sick with the diseases mentioned in the motion and others have met with our chief health critic many times over the years. Like all Canadians, they have been denied access to simple alternative remedies which would alleviate some of their pain and suffering.

Today the government will not be helping victims of multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.

I regret that my remarks could not be more positive. I support any compassion, moral commitment or protection that any government including this one would provide to Canadians. It could do what the motion asks by returning at least $11.5 billion that it still refuses to restore to our health care system. Why has the government cut that money? The Liberals on the other side of the House could had the opportunity to restore it.

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Private Member's Motion No. 455 which asks the government to amend the Criminal Code or other federal statutes to ensure that corporate executives and directors be held accountable for workplace safety.

This motion also asks the House to pay particular attention to recommendation 73 of the Nova Scotia Westray mine disaster inquiry. It calls on the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice to study the accountability of corporate executives and directors for wrongful or negligent acts. The recommendation asks for the amendment of legislation to be introduced as necessary to ensure the accountability of these executives and directors.

All Canadians know the solemn background to the introduction of this motion. The Westray mine disaster claimed the lives of 26 Canadian mine workers. These disasters are a devastating event for any mining community. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims of the Westray disaster. It was a very sad event in our history.

We want to learn from this disaster and prevent or at least prepare for the next disaster. We want to establish lines of accountability. If we can prevent a tragedy, then we want to know who is responsible for not preventing one and what as a society we are going to do about it. That is the intent of the motion we are debating.

What is wrong with this motion is that it has deviated from the recommendation made by the Westray inquiry. The inquiry asked for the matter of accountability to be studied. The motion jumps to Criminal Code amendments. The NDP leader's Private Member's Bill C-468 is similar to what the present motion is asking us to do. This smacks of political opportunism to me.

The mistake in the motion is that it does not reflect what the commission of inquiry wanted and I think it is premature. Let us consider a few things that need to be examined and what this misdirected motion is missing.

We must consider the position of unions. What about union executive responsibility and accountability? What about shop stewards and their responsibility for on-site safety and health? What about the responsibility of federal and provincial labour inspectors? What about other government and ministerial responsibilities?

Would smaller companies be hindered or hurt if only the executives were held criminally accountable for an unsafe or hazardous worksite? On the other hand the government should protect our small businesses that are creating jobs and are the engines of our economy.

The crown in Nova Scotia currently has the power to prosecute negligent mine managers who are on-site and responsible. This is true across Canada. Yes we should study our laws and make them stronger if need be.

I contacted the B.C. Workers Compensation Board with respect to this motion. In British Columbia the Workers Compensation Act is being changed effective October 1, 1999. The changes include dealing with penalties for corporate directors whose companies are in violation of health and safety regulations. These changes come from recommendations made by the royal commission that studied the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia. The commission recognized the need for personal responsibility under prescribed circumstances on the part of senior management in order to enhance workplace health and safety.

Recommendation No. 37 recommends that the province's occupational health and safety statute allow the occupational health and safety agency to apply to the courts to obtain an injunction. Until October 1, 1999 the Workers Compensation Act does not grant the board the authority to obtain an injunction when it feels that the health and safety of workers is not being looked after.

The power of getting such an injunction may be available through other legislation, but in British Columbia we felt it necessary to put the authority to get an injunction into the Workers Compensation Act.

Injunctions allow an agency to take prompt action to address potential or existing harm. They can be obtained quickly, often without advance notice. Injunctions allow us to rely on our courts for enforcement power. If the injunction is disobeyed, the breach can be converted into civil or criminal contempt proceedings. I believe this is what the current motion is trying to obtain.

Let us look closely at what prosecutions can be pursued. I quote from a document:

Prosecutions can occur when a recommendation for a more stringent sanction arises out of an accident rather than merely a hazardous situation.

Perhaps the greatest shortcoming with prosecution as an enforcement option has been the relatively high chance of acquittal.

Traditionally, the chances of an accused successfully defending an occupational health and safety prosecution and being acquitted have always been relatively good. Most prosecutions are against employers, and the low conviction rate reflects the fact that judges are not keen on convicting employers, except in cases where management has clearly been at fault ... (Fault) should not usually be the relevant legal criterion for deciding whether someone has breached an occupational health and safety statute. What sometimes happens in practice, however, is simply that the judges interpret the facts and the law in light of their own perceptions about the value of health and safety prosecutions.

Another disadvantage from a compliance perspective is that judges can choose to impose fines and/or imprisonment that falls short of the maximum a statute might permit. In addition, prosecutions do not provide a direct remedy for affected workers.

The strength of prosecution as an enforcement option is that a monetary penalty and/or a term of imprisonment can make a very strong impression on any offender, employer and worker alike, and send a strong message of deterrence. In addition, the stigma associated with prosecution can have a profound effect on a corporate or non-corporate employer concerned with its public image. This effect may extend beyond that realized by the financial penalty.

The Liberals did not listen to the Krever commission of inquiry into the tainted blood tragedy in Canada. The commission of inquiry on aboriginals in Canada is being ignored or toyed with by the Liberals. The Liberals stopped the Somalia inquiry dead in its tracks. There the people of Nova Scotia and all other Canadians know that the Liberals will not do anything about the recommendations of the Westray mine disaster inquiry.

In conclusion, I support the recommendations of the Westray mine disaster inquiry and I urge the government to conduct a study as recommended.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the thoughtful question by the hon. member for Peace River. He is innovative in his thinking and I always appreciate it when he asks intelligent questions.

Sustainable development is a very important concept. Whether it is in foreign aid, even in CIDA where we spend lots of money, we forget about the sustainable development part of it or the benefits we are able to retrieve. Similarly on environment issues when subsidies are given to certain companies they lavishly spend them on fertilizers and so on.

My first degree is in agriculture. That is my background. I understand the excessive use of these chemicals and how they imbalance the properties of the soil and their adverse environmental effects. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Peace River that this is a bad concept.

As I mentioned, sustainable development is a human activity that combines economic, social and environmental considerations without compromising the development of existing and future generations. It is definitely our moral responsibility to take care of those things and hand over our environment and the planet to the next generation in the form that we got them. That is our moral obligation.

When we see all kinds of pollution taking place and all kinds of chemicals being leached into the water, into our streams and soil, and the air being polluted, it is a very important concept that we focus on sustainable development. Whether it is subsidies or other factors, they should be well taken care of.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-32, the government's review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA in short. Before I go any further I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster on the excellent speech he delivered in the House today.

Section 139 of the act requires a five year mandatory review of the administration of the act. The review we are debating today began in the last parliament.

The main purpose of Bill C-32 is to protect the environment and human health. This legislation provides measures for the protection of the environment and human health, pollution prevention, management of toxic substances, virtual elimination of the release of the most dangerous substances and partnerships to achieve the highest level of environmental quality.

CEPA replaces and incorporates several previously existing acts such as the Environmental Contaminants Acts, the Ocean Dumping Control Act, the Clean Air Act and many others.

Bill C-32 regulates the use of toxic chemicals by industry. It controls the importation, sale and disposal of dangerous chemicals including PCBs, dioxins and ozone depleting substances.

The act was intended to fill regulatory gaps in certain environmental matters, for example toxic substances. The act was also aimed at enabling Canada to fulfill international obligations. Bill C-32 is very complex and deals with aspects of pollution prevention.

The Reform Party supports realistic measures that protect the environment and balance environmental concerns with economic concerns. Reform believes that environmental considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and technical considerations in the development of a project. This is key to protecting our environment.

Reform believes in public consultation, public participation and public commitment. Governments must work together to ensure our environment is a priority.

When Bill C-32 was introduced in the House of Commons we were pleased to note many changes had been made to improve the legislation compared to the bill that died on the Order Paper in the last parliament. The previous bill reviewing CEPA was the Liberal government's attempt to do a five year review of CEPA and it failed.

For over nine months the government's second attempt to review CEPA was under review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Over 400 amendments were tabled in committee. Reform fought hard to maintain the original intent of the bill. Over 100 amendments were passed which changed the bill significantly.

Canadians need the tools for environmental protection. Amendments to this bill threaten to handicap Canadians with unrealistic and unworkable regulations.

What are the key problems with the committee's amendments to Bill C-32? This is the big question. There are three main areas of concern. One is ministerial power. The Liberals want to give the minister too much autocratic power. The second is science based decision making. The Liberals are allowing politics to interfere with environmental decision making. That is wrong. The third is a cost effective approach. The Liberals have not been consistent in maintaining a cost effective approach to protecting our environment. In fact, I do not think the concept of a cost effective approach exists on the benches on the other side.

There are 11 other areas of concern which follow after the committee amendments. I will name only a few. Among them are: pollution prevention planning; limitless power of ministers to interfere with exports; export of hazardous waste; environment emergency planning; and the precautionary principle. All references to cost effectiveness in the bill have been removed. On the use of the word toxics the bill needs to focus on the management rather than the use of toxic substances. On residual powers, there are many areas of interdepartmental overlap and duplication.

The Reform Party put forward amendments to address all those areas of concern. Canadians will support legislation that is practical and effective. Canadians need the framework to provide for stability and economic feasibility. Legislation must enhance our ability to improve environmental performance. Canadians must be able to implement sustainable development and remain competitive and profitable.

Our approach to the environment must be balanced. We need a strong healthy economy in order to take concrete action to protect our environment.

The Reform Party supports sustainable development which is human activity that combines economic, social and environmental considerations without compromising the well-being of existing and future generations. We support the rationalization of federal and provincial laws and the development of regional and/or national environmental standards where appropriate. We support the integration of social, environmental and economic objectives into Canada's environmental management, philosophy, structure, procedures and planning.

We feel that strong federal leadership is needed for a commitment to sustainable development. This includes creating partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, educational institutions and the public in order to promote meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.

With respect to Bill C-32 we support the principle of establishing and regularly reviewing standards that are based on sound science and which are technologically, socially and economically viable.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to this private member's motion.

Motion No. 73 calls on the House to establish a House of Commons committee to hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods and services by the Canadian forces valued at more than $100 million.

With respect, I would hesitate to support the motion because I believe it is not a good idea. The motion suggests adding another layer of political involvement in defence procurement. It would also add another layer of bureaucracy causing the process to become even more extended. In my view and that of many Canadians, the defence procurement process could use a lot less political involvement.

The auditor general has also said that there is too much bureaucracy within our procurement process. In a presentation on procurement to the defence committee, it was said that the problems of our defence procurement process lies with the military, bureaucratic and political interface.

The EH-101 helicopter is a prime example of political interference. Both the Liberals and Tories messed up the military requirements with their interference and left the coast guard operations in jeopardy.

In the hard face of all these contracts that have either been awarded, cancelled or altered, it is the direct political interference that is responsible for all this mess. The official opposition does not support adding another layer of political involvement.

The Reform Party of Canada has always pursued a policy of reducing bureaucracy and red tape. We want to get rid of big government and reduce the role that government's play in our daily lives. If we were to follow what the Bloc is recommending, all of a sudden there would be a myriad of politicians wanting to jump into the fray making sure that a chunk of the $100 million contracts would end up in their ridings.

The defence department needs to be able to purchase the equipment it needs to do its job. There is always a political element to every purchase but that is where experts should come in to advise the politicians. It needs politicians to leave it alone and not to tell it what to buy and from where to buy it.

There has always been the question of sole sourcing where there is no bidding process. It would be nice to have the assurance that there would be a greater number of open bid contracts and not the sole sourcing we have seen in many cases in Canada.

There is always a question of political interference in sole sourcing contracts being awarded. I can see coming into the mix, if we have these public hearings, politicians demanding that they be involved and that industries in their ridings be involved.

I will not support contracting of purchasing being brought to the committee table. I am not able to say that I have full confidence in the existing structure and functioning of the committees of the House of Commons. The way committees work in the House needs functional improvement. Committees are not managing their own affairs efficiently. Even having a quorum has been a problem many times. I can say this because I usually arrive on time and watch most other members come in late, or sometimes having been called in to the committee.

We have an ongoing problem of leaked reports from the committees. I do not see any political will by the government to solve the problem. Even the “leaked committee report” was also leaked.

All parties unanimously decided some time ago to televise committee proceedings from gavel to gavel but we still do not have that in the committees. Is the government chickening out? I really have to wonder.

The Private Members' Business subcommittee has serious problems. I maintain, from what I have seen, that it cannot prove itself to be fair, respectful and empowering of the backbencher members of parliament. It is an exercise in futility. Heckling in committees and the House is excessive and absolutely unnecessary. Partnership prevails in all the Liberal dominated committees.

There has been a problem with the fairness of the chairmen. The Liberal chairs of various committees often unduly defend the Liberal members and their friendly witnesses, in particular their ministers. The chairs are often unfair in timing and in allowing opposition members to ask questions, or even in entertaining motions from opposition members. Most members look through the lens of political stripes and rarely through the lens of issues.

For instance, recently in the immigration committee the Liberal members who dominate the committee refused to allow the committee to study in its future business the abuse of the immigration and refugee system by drug dealers, criminals or terrorists. How can we do that if we are looking through the lens of issues? Many times the committee set-up is inefficient.

The scrutiny of regulations committee, of which I am a co-chair, has had unresolved regulations in the pipeline for as long as 25 years. We do not even have a clear disallowance procedure in place in that committee. Ministers and agencies do not respond in a timely fashion. With all of this inefficiency and mismanagement, how can anyone expect committees to do a good job in administering the over $100 million defence contracts?

Politicians should not make decisions for experts, specialists or administrators. We all know by now how the Prime Minister's aid was involved in securing the infamous grant to the Prime Minister's associate, friend, constituent or whatever we call it in the Shawinigate. How was the RCMP contract to build a road to the Prime Minister's residence awarded without any bidding? How has Revenue Canada staff been shifted in the Shawinigan shenanigans?

Who does not remember the contract awarded to Bombardier for NATO flight training in western Canada? This was an untendered contract awarded by the Liberal government to the tune of $2.85 billion. Who on the government side can justify the 90% to 92% of CIDA contracts being awarded to two central Canadian provinces for years and years? How can we expect fairness in committee in awarding defence contracts by these politicians?

I will not be supporting the motion. It borders on sabotaging our defence procurement process. It would add another level of bureaucracy, placing our troops much further from what they need to get the job done. The motion would actually increase the opportunity for political interference in the procurement process.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-251 calls for anyone convicted of sexual assault to serve that sentence consecutively to any other sentence. It also calls for consecutive parole ineligibility periods for those who commit multiple or serial murders.

The current discretion judges have to impose consecutive sentences for sex offenders is unacceptable. Consecutive sentences for these offences should be mandatory. One of my motions in the House as a new member of parliament was along the same lines as Bill C-251.

My motion M-23 calls for the House to provide that in cases where an accused person is convicted of multiple criminal offences, that person should receive consecutive sentences. My motion at that time was even broader and tougher than the scope of Bill C-251.

We on this side of the House have been calling for truth in sentencing for many years. Without truth in sentencing we lose confidence in our criminal justice system, and the justice minister admitted that in this House.

Bernardo brutally killed two people. Clifford Olson committed multiple murders. We feel that these individuals should serve multiple consecutive sentences. Justice must be done and seen to be done.

Today with the passage of this bill, criminals would know that when they commit crimes they will serve the time. We must hold criminals accountable and punish them for all the crimes they commit. We must make a difference in the punishment for one murder versus more than one murder.

We should all support the bill for at least it is a start. It is a long way from providing sufficient protection within our communities.

We should be looking through the lens of issues and not through the lens of political stripes. We should support any member of the House when he or she is doing the right thing. On this side of the House we are allowed to do that and we expect the same courtesy from the government side as well.

Today, I was pleased to swap my speaking spot with the hon. Liberal member so he could move the amendment on this important bill.

My will end my comments now because my constituents of Surrey Central do not want to hold this bill up for one more minute. The people who elected me to represent them in the House want me to do everything I can to get tough on crime. We believe that consecutive sentences for consecutive crimes is very fair. If they do the crime, they will do the time.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. There is a broad outlook of issues which are not included in this bill.

Particularly, the government has not incorporated changes to the corrections and parole system, as I mentioned. Also the victims will not have the right to participate in the release hearings. That is very important because there is information on temporary absences and other important information that a victim of crime, particularly violent crime, would want to know in order to remain safe.

There are a whole host of issues which I believe this bill should have included, but I am glad that it is a step forward. We will take the view that at least we are stepping ahead and this is a step forward toward achieving what we want to achieve.