Gurmant Grewal

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, our current justice minister has been holding her portfolio for 601 days. She has been dragging her feet on the Young Offenders Act. She has been dragging her feet on important decisions she was supposed to make. She has shown a lack of leadership on the important issues that this parliament and this country is facing.

Just now the hon. member on the other side pointed out that a wrong decision has been made. What is the member doing about it? Is he going to close his eyes and ears and just let it go as it is?

Why did 70 members on the government side write to the Prime Minister on January 20? Because they know that something wrong has been done. If something wrong has been done then we as the elected representatives of Canadians must stand in this House and work through our conscience and vote the way our constituents are telling us to vote.

How many Canadians want child pornography to continue? How many Canadians want their children in this situation? I have two teenage boys. God forbid if they were forced into this situation. How would I feel if the judge made a decision that would allow the pedophile out, he thanked the judge and then said “here are the pictures of your children”?

This is a very emotional issue. I know that members on the government side in their hearts know that they are wrong to oppose this motion. Let us forget about politics on this ground. We are not in an election mode. Let us look through the lens of issues. Let us do something which will make history in this country, which will make our children's future the best on the planet.

I ask all members, particularly the member who asked the question, if they agree that what is being done is wrong, then have guts. Do not sit in the House like a bag of sand. Work on your conscious and vote accordingly.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak on this issue on behalf of my constituents. This is a very sensitive and delicate issue.

No one is pleased to debate in this House child pornography or other things which are hurting our society. We have to address these sensitive moral issues very seriously and we have to effectively suggest and act in this Chamber so that we can control these issues and take the right decisions.

My colleagues and I, as the official opposition, have chosen to use our supply day today to force the House to debate and vote on the recent decision by a British Columbian judge that in effect allowed the possession of child pornography and made it legal in this country.

It is a good thing for Canadians that we are here on this side of the House as an alternative to the government. We are here to hold the Liberal government accountable and suggest that it make the right decision in this Chamber. The Liberals are apparently prepared to do nothing about the effect the legal possession of child pornography will have except sitting on their hands and waiting for the courts to do something.

Courts cannot replace elected officials. The judges are unelected. They are unaccountable. It is we in this House who have to think, who have to act. We cannot tinker with the law. We need a law that has strong teeth which can give protection to society, which can give protection to the children and the most vulnerable in society.

The constituents of Surrey Central and I are outraged that the Liberal government is not prepared to take immediate action to protect our children. During the break I received an unprecedented number of phone calls on this issue. In fact, the Liberal justice minister has been spewing forth legal mumbo-jumbo ever since this decision in an attempt to do nothing about the situation.

As parliamentarians Canadians expect us to work on their behalf in this place to defend and uphold the levels of morality in our society. Clearly the production and possession of child pornography is unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians.

The other day on the Internet two pedophiles were talking to each other. One said that he would rather choose Canada to live in and love children. How pathetic this is. Do the Liberals want to make Canada famous for red lights? Will it be a red light country?

Our children need care and they need protection. They need protection from drugs. They need protection from violence, television, the Internet and sexual abuse.

We do not want Canada to be a haven for pedophiles, drug dealers, criminals and terrorists. It would be a shame if we in this House did not act on this right away when it is needed. We expect the government to act and to act fast. We believe it is our duty as the elected representatives of the people to do something about this decision and outlaw the possession of child pornography.

My constituents and I were assured that immediately upon return to Ottawa this week the House would take measures to ensure the protection of our children from being induced or forced to commit sexual acts.

On January 22 about 70 members of parliament from the government side wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. It will be surprising to see what kind of result we will get from the vote today. I wonder how they will vote. If these members have the guts to write to their Prime Minister, who was probably not listening to them in caucus, we would encourage them to stand and represent their constituents and a vast majority of Canadians and vote accordingly.

We on this side of the House believe it is our moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society, the children. I am sure the members on the other side of the House will think the same way.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, shortly following the news of the B.C. court decision I heard from a constituent in Surrey Central who recounted to me her sad story that exhibits the pain and suffering that can result from the lax attitude and the laws we are facing today.

She was involved in child pornography when she was in her teens. She was vulnerable and made a bad choice. Years later evidence of her involvement became evident to her employers and employees and she had to quit her job. So she continues to suffer considerable embarrassment, regret and shame as we are talking. The point is she did not consent but she had to suffer.

I would like to ask the member what he would suggest I tell my constituent who is still suffering today.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express our opposition to Bill C-49, the first nation land management act.

When there is not an effective argument we have to listen for 10 minutes to political rhetoric and name calling. Let us focus on the argument and look to the lands officials, not the unnecessary political rhetoric from the other side.

I will argue from the point of view of women on this bill. The implications of Bill C-49 for the rights and position of native women are large. The B.C. Native Women's Society, supported by three major native organizations, has lodged a court case against the federal government to require that the issue of native women's rights be properly addressed before the enactment of Bill C-49. Yet this government still pushes ahead with this bill.

When the marriages of native women fail, all too often because of poverty or related conditions, they and their children typically lose the family home. Their ex-spouses typically get possession of the family home based on the decisions of the band council. These women often have nowhere to live on the reserve and many end up in the worst of circumstances. Unlike other Canadian women, native women on reserves do not have the protection of property division laws.

Native women will bear the brunt of these legislative provisions which we are debating today. They will be denied the protection they could be afforded through treaties if we go ahead with this bill.

This is for the information of members who are forced to toe the party line, those who are just following the talking points given to them. For the sake of those members in the House, Bill C-49 contains two provisions that are particularly worrisome for native women.

First, it states that the rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes of each signatory band. Yet there is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less biased against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

Second, the bill offers band councils draconian powers of expropriation which must concern native women as well as other native people living on reserves and non-natives with leaseholder interests in the land.

Clause 38 of Bill C-49 grants participating bands almost unlimited powers over ownership, management and expropriation of band lands. These powers will be used against native women, non-native leaseholders and band members outside the governing elite, despite the fact that they may have been living there for years and years and may have been paying taxes to the government.

Can any member in the House argue that two wrongs make a right? I do not think so. This legislative proposal would allow 14 bands including the Musqueam in Vancouver to expropriate leasehold and other interests with less than 30 days notice for community works and any other first nation purpose.

For example, because of the refusal by the Musqueam band in Vancouver to talk meaningfully to their leaseholders and because of their hard line band leadership, the property values on Musqueam land have already collapsed. Despite repeated calls on the Indian affairs minister to intervene, she has not. She refused to intervene. What is the definition of fair compensation after the Indian band has destroyed all equity and there is no market value left?

I always enjoy listening to my constituents and representing them. Let me quote a letter that I received from one of my constituents. The letter stated:

I am writing to request your assistance in dealing with several problems we are experiencing with our lease of land on an Indian reserve.

I do not know to what extent the problems are due to the nature of the lease or the nature of Band Administration or to the dispute between the various levels of government and the native bands, but I do know that they are producing substantial amounts of frustration, exasperation and anger, not just in ourselves but in many others in similar circumstances.

And while I sympathize with efforts of the government to at least redress the balance, I am becoming increasingly resentful that my rights, as a citizen, are being abrogated or at least lost in the shuffle of the questionable deals that various levels of government are offering to the Native Bands.

The primary problem is due to the expiration of the lease on 31st of March 2000 and the fact that I am financially unable to continue to pay the yearly tax and lease. It is also due to the fact that I am unable to sell the lease for the value of the substantial improvements, or even a reasonable fraction thereof that we have made on the property. With less than two years left, no one is prepared to gamble that amount of money that the Band will renew the lease. The Band has made no efforts to instil any confidence in the few prospective purchasers we have had that they would extend the lease and have acted in a manner to diminish that confidence. Given that they provided us with a letter of intent that they would extend the lease at the end of the term, it is not understandable why they have actually refused to give the same assurance to a prospective purchaser. This has to be extremely shortsighted if not actually dishonest, given our efforts and dealings with the Band over the last 10 years.

This is a frustrated constituent. This letter was sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and in her reply she said:

I can appreciate your concern and frustration in securing a long term lease for your retirement years. As I am sure you can understand, we are both obligated to operate within the parameters of the terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement. Also, in keeping with the interests of “renewing our partnerships” with Canada's Aboriginal peoples, we would not enter into an extension of the lease.

The minister further states that therefore she cannot get involved and her office cannot help. What will this constituent do? He is living in Canada. He is paying taxes to the government and the minister is showing helplessness to the constituent.

In conclusion, Bill C-49 must be rethought and amended. If passed the way it is, without introducing any amendments which we are suggesting, we would be passing legislation without any reference to taxpaying citizens who are directly and drastically affected. We will not be able to support the bill until the amendments are passed.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 1st, 1999]

What is the total amount owed by third world countries to the government of Canada and its agencies?

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell a story to the House about a small company in my constituency. It is called Bed-Roc Industries, a medium size company. It had to fight against an American competitor that used to dump tiles in B.C. and Alberta. It was selling specific tiles at a price which was undercutting Bed-Roc's price, selling at a very low price to outbid Bed-Roc.

It fought against the American company. It went through the International Trade Tribunal. After many years of battle it won the case and was compensated for the injuries it suffered.

Small and medium size businesses suffer because the bigger companies dump some of their products in our market and it is difficult for the smaller companies to survive. Very few companies go to the tribunal and go through the lengthy process to save the jobs they create in this country.

Under this Bill C-35 I am wondering if we are looking at the long term implications of the amendments. How will the changes to be implemented affect business in the agriculture sector?

[The Environment, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley did not accuse the chairman of the finance committee of leaking the report but accused the chair of compromising his position to take advantage for himself while the other members of the committee were disadvantaged because the report was not available to them.

I want to make it clear that since the report was not printed the other members were disadvantaged. Ethically it was not appropriate to use his position in this way.

[Prisons, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, inmate Lawrence Stocking blew the whistle on rampant drug use in Canadian prisons. Guess what? He was transferred to a maximum security prison where he mysteriously died.

Why was he transferred? Was it to save this government from the embarrassment of drug use in our prisons?

[Drug Awareness, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week was Drug Awareness Week.

I hope this asleep at the wheel government took the opportunity to learn something about the drug problem in our country. I hope it has learned something.

This weak Liberal government is allowing the drug cartels and organized crime to abuse our immigration system. The Liberal dominated immigration committee has refused to even study the abuse in the future business of the committee.

The bogus refugees sell drugs to our children. The problem is at an epidemic level in British Columbia. We need help now. We should tighten the borders and toughen the penalties to keep out the dealers and their drugs.

The RCMP is losing the war against drugs. They have no funds. Our RCMP needs help. Stop making Canada a haven for drug dealers. Clean up the drug problem. Just say no to drug cartels. Protect our youth from drugs.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the great people of Surrey Central and all Canadians, and as the deputy critic for foreign affairs for the official opposition I am delighted to speak to the Senate amendment of Bill C-52.

The Senate has passed Bill C-52, an act to implement the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, with the following amendment to clause 27.1. The senators want us to replace lines 6 to 10 with the following:

(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.

The House will actually be voting on the following motion:

That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-52, an act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, be now read a second time and concurred in.

We, the official opposition, offer our general support to the amendment. The chief critic for foreign affairs, my hon. colleague from Red Deer, addressed this bill at length when we were debating it in the House. Liberal members and in fact the whole House can learn a great deal from the hon. member's vast experience in foreign affairs.

I was also privileged to attend the numerous meetings of the foreign affairs and international trade committee where we discussed at great length the nuclear issue.

This seems like a reasonable amendment on a very critical issue. It is a step in the right direction and a step forward. But we remind the Government of Canada that it, along with its NATO allies, must remain on guard against rogue states and the terrorists that may threaten Canadians and the people on this planet with weapons of mass destruction.

The official opposition agrees with the amendment and hopes that as a result of this bill Canadians will become more interested in international affairs and the security of our great nation.