Gurmant Grewal

[Canadian International Development Agency, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the last three years, four western provinces got 8% of CIDA's contracts. Four eastern provinces got 2% of CIDA's contracts. Ontario and Quebec got 90% of the contracts.

In response to my question earlier, the CIDA minister said that she was sorry for British Columbia. Today in the foreign affairs committee some Liberal members said that B.C. companies should move to Ontario.

Can the Prime Minister stand up and confirm that this is his government's position?

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mean to interrupt the hon. member while he is giving a good speech but there does not seem to be a quorum in the House.

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate of the previous three speakers but, as I understand it, we are not allowed to put questions to previous speakers. However, I have some questions which I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke.

The Canada Lands Surveyors, as I understand it, is responsible for public domain lands of the Government of Canada, which include Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Indian reserves, national parks, offshore sites, national wildlife areas and migratory birds sanctuaries.

The purpose of Bill C-31 is to establish the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors as a self-governing association which will substitute its board of examiners to establish, under the Canada Lands Surveyors Act, the authority responsible for the examination, admission and qualifications of candidates for commission as Canada lands surveyors.

I have no hesitation in supporting this bill, particularly because this bill is an effort to transfer responsibility to the private sector. I believe the private sector can better regulate its members.

Furthermore, this transfer will result in a cost reduction to the departmental budget.

It is very important for us to define what a Canada lands surveyor is responsible for. Can the member throw some light on what is the definition of the role of the Canada lands surveyors?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not on a speech. I would like to ask a question of the hon. member.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the speech from the member from the other side. He was talking about where the compassion was. He was asking a question of the official opposition during his speech. I would like to ask the hon. member—

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express our opposition to Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts. This bill was previously introduced as Bill C-94 in April 1997. There still appears to be minor differences between this bill and Bill C-94.

My colleagues in the official opposition believe that people are concerned about victims of crime. My constituents and a host of others inside and outside the law enforcement community are very disappointed with what the Liberals have done with this bill.

The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest effective technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society.

DNA identification is that kind of tool. If used to its full potential the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. The technology available through DNA identification would make our society safer. It would protect our homes, our families and our lives from criminal activity and in particular violent crime.

It is my understanding that DNA capabilities will greatly enhance the work of our law enforcement community. This technology over the next few years and decades will virtually change our world in terms of crime solving, crime detection and the positive identification of criminals.

Bill C-3 if passed unamended will provide Canadians with a false sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate and incomplete piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. We do not however support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Why do I oppose this bill? I oppose it because Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of DNA technology and because Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of the charge, whereas fingerprints are taken at the time of arrest. Another reason I oppose Bill C-3 is that it does not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

As it stands now, Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. This is a needlessly restrictive measure in Bill C-3. The official opposition does not want to join the Liberals in their attempt to fool Canadians about what this bill does, and most importantly what it does not do.

It does not go far enough and we must not fool ourselves. That is wrong and that is why on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I will be voting against this bill. It is an inadequate piece of legislation.

The Liberals are choosing to slow down the process of the advent of DNA identification into our crime fighting efforts. The Liberals are crippling the ability of our law enforcement agencies to use this technology.

The government has so far refused to allow the amendments to this bill that have been put forward by the official opposition. These amendments would put teeth into Bill C-3 but it is as if the Liberals do not want that. They are afraid to unleash this powerful crime fighting tool because the Liberals are more concerned about the criminals and the rights of the accused than they are concerned about the victims of crime and the rights of the victims.

Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead to use DNA identification tools when the technology was first invented. For example, it is like forcing people to use candles or kerosene lanterns instead of electric lightbulbs, or for that matter a minister's office asking her staff to use 286 computers rather than pentiums. This is how technology evolves. We should use the advanced technology for the purpose intended.

Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. Whether by parolling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, the safety of our society is a secondary issue for this Liberal government.

We are watching the Liberals withhold granting tools to our law enforcement agencies. The Liberals are not getting tough on crime, violent crime in particular. The Liberals are not willing to do the work necessary to give our police agencies better tools to solve crimes and to prevent crime.

Why do the Liberals deny Canadians amendments to the Young Offenders Act? The justice minister continually answers the question by saying she will do it in a timely fashion. What is meant by a timely fashion when it is not timely?

The Liberals say they are concerned about the constitutional and privacy rights of the criminals and that is why they are trying to pass such a watered down DNA identification bill. Yet the Liberals refuse to wait for the report of a constitutional review that would dispense with the issue of DNA identification.

Bill C-3 in its present form denies our police the full use of DNA identification. This maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society. It seems to me that if DNA identification were positive unequivocal proof, then the rights of an individual would best be served by that person providing a DNA sample.

DNA samples are conclusive if processed carefully and correctly. A DNA sample can disprove as well as prove the accused's involvement in a crime. The Liberals' argument in support of allowing the judges not to issue a warrant for the taking of a DNA sample fails.

Because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of persons accused of heinous crimes, the Liberals are restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement agencies. The Liberals should be ashamed.

Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold-hearted legal talk to deny giving us what we need. The Liberal government used cold legal arguments and numbers to deny help to all the victims of tainted blood. Now the Liberals are allowing certain crimes to go unsolved because they are afraid to violate the rights of the accused.

Clifford Olson would have been charged earlier had the DNA technology been available to the police. More of the murders he committed would have been solved earlier and perhaps some lives could have been saved.

Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate.

The government is failing our youth, our seniors, our communities and our society because it lacks the moral strength to deal with all types of violent crime and repeat offenders.

I could go on and on but my constituents and I are warning this government to get tough on crime, to do the work necessary to protect our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3 as it is presented unless the amendments are accepted. The bill does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want in terms of using the DNA identification tool.

[South Surrey Eagles Hockey Team, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to congratulate the South Surrey Eagles hockey team for winning the Doyle Cup championship for the second year. Now the Eagles are soaring to the Pacific Region Royal Bank Cup national championships tomorrow in Nanaimo. The people of Surrey Central are proud and wish them every success.

I urge all members of the House to take an interest in the sports activities of the young people in their ridings. Our young athletes should be encouraged to pursue the social, health and fitness benefits they receive from their sports activities.

Youth should be encouraged to get involved in the community and to be a part of the solutions to our problems. Young athletes like the players on the South Surrey Eagles present fine role models for all young people in Canada.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is tonight's vote all about? It is about people who contacted hepatitis C through no fault of their own, people who are hurting like Mark Bulbrook of Hamilton, Ontario; James Lodge of Victoria, B.C.; Karen Neilson of Oyen, Alberta; Leona Martens of Alamed, Saskatchewan; Pat Lyons of Port Coquitlam, B.C.; Dale Strohmaier of Edmonton, Alberta; David Smith of Victoria, B.C.; Ronald Thiel of Saanich, B.C.; Louise Schmidt of Maple Ridge; Geraldine Clements of Naramata, B.C.; Rita Wegscheidler of Penticton, B.C.; Brad Baldwin of Dalmany, Saskatchewan.

These are all people left out of the hepatitis C compensation package. They deserve equal compensation with all other victims of tainted blood because they are people who are suffering just as much as those who are to be included.

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hepatitis C is a killer disease. Its victims suffer and die. Unlike other diseases, hep C is given by the government through tainted blood. Blood is not for sale in Canada.

Canadians trusted our government, but our government failed them.

The Liberal government continues to refuse to do the right thing by not compensating all the victims fairly. I believe the Prime Minister is confused about what the letter C in hepatitis C stands for: compensation, compassion or confidence vote.

Earlier the government made a mistake by not screening the blood supply. Then the government made another mistake by not compensating fairly all the victims. Now it will make another mistake by not allowing a free vote in the House for government backbenchers.

I remind all members in the House that principles should be more important than policies and—

[Young Offenders Act, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding this year we have had two violent murders of innocent seniors. While the justice minister makes lame excuses, Canadians are suffering.

The identity of the young offender will be kept secret and his sentence will not be more than 10 years.

Can the justice minister tell my grieving community how many more innocent people will be losing their jobs before she changes the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion? The time has already run out for all those victims.