Nina Grewal

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act, or the national do not call registry.

I understand the frustrations of the general public who are often inundated with phone calls that interrupt family dinners, entertainment and their lives, which is why I am generally supportive of such a bill. Do not call registries give the public a tool in controlling their own lives. It allows Canadians to protect their privacy and protect their personal lives from usual intrusive measures by telemarketers. Everyone has a story of being called late in the night or early on a weekend morning and having their day upset by obnoxious telemarketers.

Canadians in their busy lives are asking Parliament for simple solutions. We in the Conservative Party recognize this need and are supportive of a do not call registry.

However we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The telemarketing industry in Canada is important to the livelihood of many of my constituents and people across Canada. The industry employs more than 270,000 people and is worth approximately $16 billion in goods and services. With such an economic impact, it is important that the bill be specific in its intent and impact and contains no potential loopholes for Liberal regulators to go beyond the boundaries of the bill.

Earlier this year I rose to speak against the original bill because of its many flaws, especially for the potential of Liberal loopholes. At that time I and many of my colleagues were concerned with the bill's vagueness. Exceptions to the registry were not included in the bill and neither were any details on how the list would be maintained or checked by the respective companies involved. In the original version of Bill C-37, these exemptions were not laid out by the government.

Furthermore, the power to determine these details was delegated by the Liberals to the CRTC and its regulatory powers rather than to elected representatives. The irony was that even the CRTC in committee expressed its desire that Parliament be specific in its regulations to avoid confusion.

The CRTC is a regulatory body and should not be taking over the policy making capacity of the House of Commons or the government. Broadly worded legislation invites the potential for abuse and exports democracy to unelected people when that role is properly contained within the House of Commons.

I and many members of the House have reason to be concerned about such matters. The sponsorship program shows what poorly designed programs with Liberal loopholes can do: the waste and theft of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Before I support legislation creating another program, proper safeguards must be put in place to avoid bureaucratic bungling and political interference. We have already seen in the past what happens when such safeguards are not in place.

At the committee stage, I was happy to see that some of my concerns were addressed in the bill. Possible exemptions were clearly laid out thanks to the Conservatives and other opposition amendments. Political parties, charities and polling firms were all exempted, which is clearly in the public interest.

In a democracy, it is important that political parties, candidates and riding associations have the necessary tools to engage the public. Telephoning constituents is a necessary tool for members of Parliament and political parties to remain engaged with the public. We cannot afford as a democracy to enact legislation that could potentially lessen voter turnout even more.

Exceptions were also made for party candidates and riding associations, which I think is in keeping with my democratic concerns. Candidates and riding associations have even more reasons to be given an exemption. As the local representative of parties, riding associations and party candidates are connected to the grassroots. To take away the ability to phone constituents would be an affront to the right of political expression, not to mention further weakening of democratic participation in Canada.

Similarly, the exception made for charities remains key to the viability of our non-profit sectors. These organizations are already struggling to get funds due to overtaxation by the government.

In the United States, for instance, Americans give almost twice as much to charities as Canadians. It is not because Americans are more charitable that they give more. It is because they are taxed less.

Canadian charities need every tool available to them to continue their good work in our communities: feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless and providing places of worship for people of faith.

An exception for polling firms is also clearly in the public interest. While polling as an institution has its pros and cons, polling still provides a snapshot of Canadian opinion on a whole host of issues. We should not be led by polls but neither should we be ignorant of them. Polling also contributes to private sector research in product development and marketing, providing Canadians with better products and economic growth.

Who knows, without polls we may not have had the swiffer wet jet or the Mr. Clean eraser, which would be a travesty for housecleaners the world over.

Seriously, these exemptions are important to all democratic and market oriented societies. They can no doubt be abused but in the end they provide better democracy, improved products, more jobs and stronger economic growth.

However there is still concern as to whether another program under Liberal control will be adequately managed. I am committed to my constituents to keep a close eye on the do not call registry to ensure that the Liberals do not overrun their budgets like the gun registry program or the HRDC boondoggle.

Thankfully, a future Conservative government will ensure that this program is run within cost and does not become another gun registry or HRDC boondoggle.

Another major concern is fraud through telephones, for instance, gambling and lottery sales by telemarketers to vulnerable members of society, particularly the seniors on fixed incomes. There should be tough measures in place to prevent and deal with it.

Already in this minority Parliament we have substantially rewritten this bill and others and have shown the benefits of having a check on Liberal corruption, waste and mismanagement.

The bill attempts to bridge a divide between protecting a valued industry in Canada and the privacy rights of Canadians. With the exemptions now provided in the bill, I believe that legitimate business practice will continue and that political parties and charities can continue to reach out to the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells and the Canadian people.

[Organized Crime, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal patronage hack, Larry Campbell, recently said, “Crystal meth is no big deal”.

Someone should tell Mr. Campbell about the reports that one in ten Surrey youth have tried crystal meth and about the major crystal meth lab busts in Richmond.

Why do the Liberals insist on a do nothing approach that has led to increased drug abuse, an explosion in grow ops and wrecked lives? When will the Liberal government take crystal meth seriously and impose mandatory prison sentences for peddling crystal meth?

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, all of us know that illegal street racing terrorizes our neighbourhoods and kills children and our friends. We must put a stop to it. More than 30 people have been killed in the Lower Mainland in the past years because of street racing.

Like other British Columbians, Mr. Cadman understood very well the seriousness of the problem. He introduced private member's Bill C-230, but the government refuses to support it. Now the Liberals have reversed their position, have taken over the bill as their own, but they have seriously weakened it. We need this legislation, but it must be as forceful as it was in its original form.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

The Liberals are attempting to steal the legacy of Chuck Cadman by a watered down version of his own private member's bill for cheap political points. In the entire time I have been in the House, I have never seen a more cowardly and shameful display. I am not convinced that the Liberals are genuine in their approach and neither are my constituents.

Mr. Dane Minor in my riding was involved with Mr. Cadman for many years and has made a significant contribution to criminal justice reforms and has tirelessly volunteered on many fronts and issues in the community. He explained his disgust as follows: “My immediate reaction was a positive one. It would be a fitting memorial to Chuck. Then the justice minister announced his watered down version. This isn't Chuck's bill in either intent or design. It is a cynical attempt by the Liberals to use Chuck's good name while doing little or nothing to change existing laws”.

The justice minister has co-opted the work of a good man by claiming connection to a legacy he shows no respect for. The people of Surrey knew Mr. Cadman well and they know these bills are nothing but a political stunt.

Previously when Chuck was a Conservative member the government refused to support Chuck's private member's legislation because it called for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions and increased punishment for repeat offenders. The Conservatives have consistently supported these measures and have advocated similar measures across the board in criminal justice legislation.

Bill C-65 is a neutered version of Mr. Cadman's past bills. Although it provides for mandatory driving prohibitions and the inclusion of street racing in aggravating factors for sentencing, it fails to include the clauses on repeat offenders which were an essential part of Mr. Cadman's bill.

Before I support this government bill, substantial amendments must be made to actually make this Chuck's bill and not the political rip-off it currently is.

First, Mr. Cadman's increasing scale punishment clauses must be reinstated in the bill. The scale punishment clauses were included to address repeat offenders who failed to learn their lesson after their initial punishment.

The bill also needs to be amended to treat street racing as an aggravating factor in sentencing, which could then include mandatory driving restrictions. We must have the legal ability to get those punks off our streets for good. Mandatory driving restrictions and an escalating punishment scale are exactly the tools to do it.

We have seen similar problems with Liberal criminal justice legislation for over 12 years. The Liberals refuse to adequately address the needs of communities plagued by repeat offenders who seem to never learn their lessons. Mr. Cadman understood this problem all too well, but the Liberals do not. They insist on every chance being given to the criminals, while our communities suffer as a result. If the Liberals were truly committed to Chuck's legacy, they would pass Mr. Cadman's original bill as is.

The origins of the bill also deserve deeper analysis. In the Lower Mainland we have experienced growing problems with street racing on residential streets. Let us be clear. These are not kids mildly speeding on the freeway. Rather, we are talking about people racing on residential streets. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the problems associated with such a dangerous activity.

The problem of street racing is not simply one of newspaper headlines and a few high profile cases. There is data to show the problem is growing from previous years. Recent statistics in the United States show a substantial increase in street racing with accident deaths caused by street racing doubling. I am sure the statistics hold true in Canada as well.

The question of why street racing is increasing is difficult to assess, but one thing is certain. Young people who have had their licence for only a few years are driving cars whose specific purpose is to be driven at excessive speeds. Parents have a responsibility to ensure their youth are driving responsibly and perhaps not driving powerful sports cars.

While it is impossible to legislate what kids and young adults can drive, it is perhaps time the House also considered penalties for parents of minors who are convicted of street racing where obvious negligence has been shown. Parents would think twice about giving their kids speed-laden killing machines if they too were held responsible for their children's behaviour.

Besides the cars themselves, there are also other means of limiting street racing. Illegal street racing is often an organized spectator sport. These organized events are not the fabled chicken races of the 1950s that happened on the outskirts of small towns. They happen in our busy city centres and residential neighbourhoods.

San Diego in the United States was a haven for organized illegal street racing for many years. It tackled the problem by not only increasing penalties for street racing itself but also for the organizers and spectators of street racing. By focusing merely on the supply of street racing, in other words the street racers themselves, we miss an important component of street racing. We must also focus on the demand of street racing from spectators who fuel the egos of speed that end up killing innocent bystanders.

San Diego solved this problem of demand by instituting a fine of $5,000 for spectators. This has seen great success. Street racing is now down by almost 100%. It is pretty difficult to get more successful than that.

I would like to see amendments that also address this demand aspect of street racing. By focusing on both the criminal supply and demand issues, we have an excellent opportunity to actually solve the problem of street racing once and for all. After a few people get $5,000 fines for rooting these people on in their dangerous activities, it will act as a deterrent.

The bill is an important step forward in addressing the needs of communities plagued by street racing, but it fails to build in the proper checks that could change behaviour in our communities. Mandatory driving prohibitions and an escalating scale for repeat offenders are a great way to deter street racers themselves. Chuck understood as much when he created the original bill.

We could make the bill even better by also focusing on the demand issues of street racing by fining the spectators and organizers of such events. Most racers are driven by a simple competitive spirit. Without a crowd, their yearnings will not be satisfied. Let us get rid of the crowd and the illegal street racers. If they want to race, they should go to the racetracks where proper safeguards are in place to handle high speeds.

Racing has always been part of the human experience and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. From the Olympics to NASCAR, humanity loves the rush and competition of a good race. We politicians love a good election race, but we cannot turn a blind eye to illegal street racing. It turns our roads and streets into paths of destruction and death. By tackling both the supply and demand issues of illegal street racing, we could solve this problem once and for all.

[Justice, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before voting on my age of consent motion, the justice minister claimed that it would criminalize teenage kissing. The minister also claimed that police and prosecutors would be overwhelmed with puppy love cases.

Sex between a 14 year old and a 45 year old is not puppy love. In fact, I offered a close in age amendment to the minister. Will the minister stop trivializing this issue and raise the age of consent or will parents have to wait for a Conservative government to protect our children?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to speak to Bill C-11, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

Canadians have been waiting for a long time for effective whistleblower legislation. Countries around the world have had whistleblower legislation for decades, protecting public servants who take their oath of protecting the public interest seriously.

Indeed, one wonders that if there had been whistleblower legislation years ago, we may not have had a sponsorship scandal. Who knows how much taxpayers' money could have been saved. Instead, it ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party.

Unlike the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party has always supported effective whistleblower legislation for public servants who expose wrongdoing, corruption, waste and mismanagement.

Bill C-11 fails on a number of levels, including its enforcement apparatus, its procedural scope and its transparency mechanisms. Before voting to support this bill, I would like to see amendments made to correct these glaring deficiencies in the bill.

First, as it stands, the bill's creation of an independent commissioner to oversee whistleblowing complaints is flawed.

As was the case with the previous Ethics Commissioner, the independent commissioner will report to a minister and not the House of Commons. Past experience with ministerial reporting has not endeared anyone to the process. In fact, in the case of whistleblowing, which could easily implicate political appointees, party workers and/or elected government officials, there is nothing worse than having the commissioner report to a cabinet minister who is often beholden to these interests. An enforcement apparatus must be put in place that avoids reporting to cabinet.

This is clearly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. An independent commissioner reporting to Parliament would be freer in his or her assessments and also more likely to avoid the subtle and structural procedures and biases of cabinet and ministerial authority. Why after 12 years of Liberal rule would we trust a system that furthers ministerial power over whistleblowing?

Rather, we should be making every attempt to make the independent commissioner's office truly transparent. Quite frankly, why should Canadians trust these Liberals to guard themselves, when in the past, they have proven themselves so capable of being untrustworthy?

Second, an independent commissioner responsible to Parliament would further decentralize power from the Prime Minister's Office. As we saw in the sponsorship scandal, power concentrated in one area tends to be abused. Or as Lord Acton most famously said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Lord Acton's words are just as applicable today as yesterday.

Part of the need for whistleblowing legislation is that power has been centrally concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office, leading to cronyism and control. By having the independent commissioner report to the House of Commons, we can further erode the incredible power of the Prime Minister's Office, promoting greater transparency, accountability and democracy.

However, democracy has not been this government's strong point. In fact, the Prime Minister came into office promising to slay the democratic deficit. We have seen in this House the exact opposite: confidence votes ignored, excessive nannying of the Prime Minister's Office, appointing Liberal hacks to the patronage appointments and absolutely no movement on democratic and electoral reform.

Bill C-11 furthers this trend by not prohibiting reprisals against public servants who bring their complaints through procedures other than the ones spelled out in the bill. Those who go through the media, police or Auditor General all face the possibility of disciplinary action under this bill. Far from opening up government, this aspect of the bill places undue restrictions on public servants and could continue a climate of secrecy in the public service.

A Conservative government would provide broad protection for civil servants in all areas of disclosure, including the media. The media's role in any democratic society is to act as a check and balance against excessive government authority and control. While we would all think that at various times the media has failed in its role, by eliminating the ability of public servants to go to the media we further erode the checks and balances of a free and democratic society. Accountability and transparency demand that public servants be allowed media disclosure.

There is nothing to keep politicians more accountable than the prospect of headlines screaming scandal and corruption, as the former head of Canada's Mint has recently discovered. Accountability through the media is a key component of any whistleblowing legislation and a Conservative government would ensure that it was included in the bill.

Transparency is further eroded by the scope of the bill, which excludes several crown corporations. There is simply no excuse not to include all government agencies. As we saw at the Mint under former Liberal MP David Dingwall, crown corporate heads often feel themselves outside the purview of Parliament and end up spending taxpayers' dollars wildly. We cannot allow this to happen by excluding certain agencies.

Transparency is also jeopardized by the time allowance for departments to refuse to release wrongdoings for over five years. Frankly, five years is too long. With such a provision in place, the sponsorship scandal would still have taken place even if it had been reported by dutiful public servants. The Liberals could have continued to keep a lid on the scandal while claiming to be ethical in government.

Such a scenario is completely unacceptable. It seems the Liberals have learned nothing about ethics in government over the last two years. While the Prime Minister is good at ethics rhetoric, when we look below the surface we see the same Liberal solutions to Liberal-made problems. It is not surprising that the solutions turn out to be no solutions at all.

Whistleblowing legislation is an important component to any reform agenda. However, it is one piece of the puzzle. Well crafted whistleblowing legislation provides transparency and accountability, but it does little to address the systemic and structural problems inherent in our present parliamentary system. For that we need a clear focus on system-wide reform measures, such as parliamentary confirmation of judges and heads of crown agencies, electoral reform, and Senate reform.

What we clearly need is leadership on both democratic reform and ethical government. We have had leadership on neither issue from the Prime Minister and I fear we never will. The only way to truly bring honest government to Canada is by implementing a broad range of democratic reforms, something a Conservative government will be more than happy to do in the not too distant future.

[Justice, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday members opposite chose to reject my motion to raise the age of consent, choosing instead to protect predators who prey on young teens. Parents and families need laws that protect children, not predators. Now predators are coming to Canada from around the world to take advantage of our weak Liberal laws. Police and family groups across Canada support this change.

Could the Minister of Justice explain why he is giving a pass to sexual predators instead of protecting young Canadians?

[Age of Consent, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over 80% of Canadians want Parliament to raise the age of consent so children are protected from sexual predators. In most democracies around the world, the age of consent stands at 16 years but in Canada it is 14.

Liberal social policy is making Canada a hot spot for Internet predators. Sexual predators are flocking to Canada to take advantage of our vulnerable youth. Kids in grade 8 or 9 are not mature enough to drink, drive, smoke or watch certain movies, but the government believes 14 year olds can make adult decisions when it comes to sex.

This is not about puppy love, but about perverts preying on our children. We need to act now before more innocent lives are ruined.

Shame on the Liberals and shame on the minister for not taking the protection of our children seriously. A Conservative government would do the right thing. We stand up for Canadian children.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this unacceptable backdoor practice must stop and the visa that has been issued to the general's daughter must be revoked.

General Suleiman supported the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister in February. Why is it the practice of the government to issue visitors' visas to family members connected to such a ruthless man while countless other legitimate applicants are turned down?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals politicize visitors' visas and ministerial permits and continue to allow the abuse of our immigration system. The daughter-in-law of the notorious Syrian general, Bahjat Suleiman, was issued a visitor's visa to allow her to give birth in Canada so that the baby would automatically be a Canadian citizen. Now the general's pregnant daughter has been issued a visitor's visa so that she can give birth in Canada.

Why should Canadian citizenship be treated like a political favour?