Gurmant Grewal

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member on the opposite side. She used almost all of her time talking about women entrepreneurs which is good. However, since Bill C-21 deals with small businessmen, when she was talking about women entrepreneurs did she mean small businessmen or was she talking about a different group of businessmen, namely women entrepreneurs?

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member. I think we all agree that small businesses create jobs in this country. The Reform Party is pro small business. We know that 98% of businesses in the country are small businesses.

I remember a short story. Once I was arguing with one of my friends. He said that small businesses are what create jobs in this country. I asked him how to start a small business when there is a problem because job killing taxes are so high. It is very difficult for small businesses to thrive in this environment. He said it is easy. Start a big business and pay so much tax that you are left with a small business. That is the kind of situation we are facing in this country. Job killing taxes are hard on businesses.

In 1994 the industry committee called for a review to be done of the Small Business Loans Act. That review has not been done up to now. The auditor general also points out that a complete cost benefit analysis has to be done before proceeding further. The auditor general has critically looked at this issue and has recommended that a full review of the act be undertaken before an additional $1 billion is committed to this program.

Since this program is already inefficient and unaccountable, how can the member support this bill until a complete evaluation is done and until this bill is efficient and doing what it is supposed to do? Why would Canadians support this bill?

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and as the official opposition deputy critic for foreign affairs to participate in this debate concerning the crisis in Iraq. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert. From now on all my colleagues will be sharing their time.

Today the issues with respect to Iraq are should we accept or reject the United States' offer and what to do if reasonable diplomatic and peaceful efforts fail. This serious issue has many implications: political, economic, military and above all, it has human and moral effect.

We should all take note of the problem that we have very few facts to deal with in this debate.

We need more information from our government so that we can all effectively debate this issue.

There is a history and pattern of terrorism, lies and betrayal by Saddam Hussein who has consistently tried to destabilize the Persian Gulf.

Canada has been involved in the Persian Gulf since 1990 in a meeting with the United Nations Security Council to ensure a clear and effective international response to Iraqi aggression.

We have supported various international sanctions against Iraq. In 1991, we made a commitment to the multilateral force that defeated Iraq and enforced conditions of peace on Iraq.

In October 1997, the American members of the United Nations weapons inspection teams were ordered out of Iraq. The terms of peace were broken.

I have a long list of historical facts but since my time is limited, I will skip them.

Last month, weapons inspection teams were blocked from 72 sites in Iraq. Fourteen of these sites were inspected since. We know there have been some 40 sites in Iraq that have been declared as presidential palaces since the gulf war. There is no reasonable explanation beyond weapons sites in a country that has had its wealth severely curtailed since the gulf war.

It has been confirmed that Iraq has manufactured and stocked chemical and biological weapons. Iraq has significant stocks of anthrax, VX nerve gas, botulinum and anflatoxin. It is such dangerous stuff I cannot even pronounce it, but I know it can kill millions of people.

Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people, the Kurds, during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. By 1989 the Iraqi ambassador to Kuwait stated that Iraq has enriched uranium. The world has reasonable grounds to assume that Saddam Hussein will use these weapons.

Iraq has a history of destabilizing peace activities. Iraq invaded Iran, Kuwait and attacked Israel. We, the Canadians, are not against Iraqi people. We know they are victims of Saddam Hussein, his weapons, his dictatorship, United Nations sanctions and the war.

We are concerned about human life and human suffering because there is human life on both sides of the issue whether Iraq is attacked or not. We are also aware that the lives of Canadian soldiers are also at stake if we commit our military support.

We have to carefully see if this risk is outweighed or not. This could have been done if the Liberal government had shown leadership and had taken a position. Then it could amend it after the debate.

The Leader of the Official Opposition had to fill in that vacuum. Before we commit our support, we must meet the six point criteria as our leader mentioned. So far, we meet three of those criteria.

There is a serious international threat and it seems that the diplomatic efforts are failing. Second, there is multinational support for military action and, third, our role can be within our fiscal and military capabilities, but we do not know yet if government is satisfied with the strategy. What is the mission and plan for the military action and what is the command and control structure? Is it satisfactory?

We know certainly that we need more information from this government. Canada must support and co-operate as requested in order to ensure that the original United Nations resolution 687 that Iraq agreed to following the Persian Gulf war continues to be respected by Iraq.

We support a diplomatic solution to the crisis caused by Iraq. That is plan A. Everything that can be done should be done to ensure that a diplomatic solution is reached. Failing that, we go to plan B and that plan is military intervention.

We want a solution that avoids all bloodshed and loss of human life, pain and suffering. That is plan A. By declaring our willingness to go to plan B, we are sending a strong message to Iraq. That message is that it either negotiates a solution diplomatically, fairly and peacefully or the crisis will be solved by military might.

There still remains a chance that a diplomatic solution can be reached. Lieutenant-General Amer al-Saadi said that the discussions have been constructive, very open and realistic, and therefore he pleads for more time.

We should be sure there is reasonable time for these talks to continue and be completed before a military intervention. I hope Saddam Hussein will yield to the military pressure and back off. I really hope he does, at least for the sake of the innocent people.

Iraq will either stop producing weapons of mass destruction through diplomacy and agreement or Iraq will stop producing weapons of mass destruction by force.

I firmly support the Canadian obligation to ensure that Iraq complies fully with the United Nations resolution regarding Iraq.

Canada has a long tradition of leading the world in peacemaking and peacekeeping. We have given a great deal of assistance in negotiating diplomatic solutions around the world. We have always participated in the most significant international efforts. Recently we have much to be proud of in this regard. We have spearheaded an international land mine ban treaty, we have assisted in Rwanda, Haiti and Bosnia.

The world knows Canada as a peace loving, diplomatic nation. If we show support for the U.S., Britain and our allies in the Persian Gulf, as we have been asked, the world will take notice. As a nation we want to strive to stand firmly with our traditional allies for the cause.

We have been asked by the United States to provide transportation support and search and rescue support in a non-combative role. This should be left to the military experts to determine and not to the politicians.

I urge that while committing our support, Canada should become active in pursuing a diplomatic solution as well and show leadership.

[Iraq, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada seems to be the only country that has declared no position whatsoever on the crisis in Iraq. This is both unacceptable and irresponsible. Every other country in the world has declared a position, whether asked or not.

Will the minister finally tell us what will be Canada's role, if any, in exposing and destroying weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is hiding?

[International Development Week, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government should not be forcing Canadian taxpayers to cough up funding for international development week.

Private capital is flowing into developing nations. It is private capital that reduces poverty, not government aid. On the other hand, the Liberals have driven up our debt and taxes to record levels. This government has cut 23% from health and education spending for Canadians.

It is the private sector that should pay for international development week, if it wants to. The Liberal and Tory governments have already wasted $50 billion in aid and there is still lack of accountability.

The CIDA minister's failure should not be rewarded. International aid has failed the poor in developing nations. Private investment has proven itself to be the real answer to poverty, not aid.

Canadians want the Liberals to let private capital lead business—

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central, British Columbia and all Canadians to participate in the ice storm debate.

On Monday all members of the House supported the Reform Party's motion to set aside some time today to discuss the ice storm and pay tribute to the Canadian men and women who survived it and those heroes who helped make the survival quick and effective.

I join my colleagues in the House in extending my sympathy to those 20 persons who lost their lives in the storm, to those who lost those near and dear to them, to all those who suffered pain and sorrow, to all those who suffered loss of livestock, farms and businesses, and to all those who suffered from the cold and lived without heat and water. All Canadians from the other parts of Canada were with those who suffered during this natural disaster. Let me say, we share their frustration, anger and exhaustion.

I join my colleagues in this House from all political stripes in saluting all those heroes, all those brave men and women from our armed forces, the firefighters, police and paramilitary and those in the technological services who protected life and property and restored the services in the storm hit areas. My heart goes out to them with my admiration, pride and thankfulness.

There are some people who still do not have power, heat, water and other necessities in life. They cannot watch us on their televisions. I thank them for their patience and courage. Folks, help is arriving.

I pay tribute to all the churches, hospitals and other organizations, all Canadians and our neighbours from the south who participated in helping the victims.

During the storm an old lady in my constituency of Surrey Central called my office and said that she was desperate to send help to all the victims who were suffering. That shows that people from every corner of Canada care about the people who suffered during the storm.

My younger son, Livjot, who is in grade 7 but very much a politician, watched with dismay as hydro towers and wires fell under the weight of tonnes of ice. He was so touched by the disaster that he checked with me many times to see if my staff and other people I knew in Quebec and the affected areas of Ontario were all right.

As an employer my thoughts went to all the people I knew, particularly my assistants in my House of Commons office. I phoned each of them at home to find out how they were doing and how their families were coping. I assured them that the people of Surrey Central for whom they work in Ottawa were offering their sympathy and prayers.

One of my assistants, Mrs. Dee Spiegel, reported to me that she had opened up her home to a family of five people who had lost their electricity, water and heat. She and her husband generously housed the mother, father and the little children for three days and three nights until they could return to their own home. Everyone was warm and fed.

My other assistant, Mr. Dan Wallace, though his home was not affected, reported to me that his parents who live near Perth, Ontario, were in very bad shape. My assistant was terribly concerned about his mother and father who were bravely fending off the ice storm, remaining in their home with determination, armed with only a cellular phone, a gigantic field stone fireplace and their mastiff dog.

I felt it was appropriate and I did not hesitate to assure both of my assistants that they should take whatever time they needed to do whatever they could for their families, their neighbours and their communities in dealing with the ice storm.

There are countless stories of suffering and hardship resulting from the ice storm. Many people had to work hard to save their lives, their families' lives, the lives of their livestock, their businesses and other things.

This is the first time in this parliament when members from all parties have looked through the lens of issues rather than the usual lens of their political stripes. I shall expect this trend to continue in the House.

All of us in the House should learn a lesson from the ice storm tribute today. We should strive to work together in a spirit of co-operation. It does not matter what part of the country we are from. It does not matter what ethnic background we have, what languages we speak, what religion or culture we have. We have one similarity and that is that we are all proud Canadians.

Another lesson we can learn from the ice storm is that we must be prepared for any disaster. Last year it was the floods in Manitoba and then it was the ice storm. Who knows what it will be next?

The ice storm shows us how vulnerable Canadians are to the elements of our homeland. Some parts of Canada are located on fault lines. My constituency of Surrey Central and neighbouring areas in the lower mainland and the islands are among areas prone to major earthquake. Our memories have not yet faded of the earthquakes in San Francisco and Japan.

At present, my province of British Columbia is left without emergency preparedness. It is a serious matter. Despite warnings municipalities are not ready. The provincial government is not ready. Above all, the federal Liberal government is not only but has closed CFB Chilliwack.

British Columbia is left without reasonable emergency preparedness. My constituents tell me if B.C. is abandoned or unattended by this government, scientists say a big earthquake may hit at any time. If we have not learned to believe politicians yet let us believe the scientists at least.

The nearest Canadian Armed Forces base which can provide emergency help is based in Edmonton, Alberta. Assuming that the roads and bridges will be operating, common sense can tell us how long it will take before the first help may arrive to the people who are suffering.

If the earthquake is strong, the CFB does not have the necessary logistics to airlift the supplies to be made available to those victims. What if the airstrip is not there for relief supplies to land? What will happen to those injured, buried or trapped children, women and men among fire and floods? Who will be there to hear their cries?

The government should not play political football with CFB Chilliwack or with the rescue helicopters. Closing CFB Chilliwack is clearly a political decision, not a logical one.

We should learn lessons from one suffering or one disaster and prepare for the next.

As I am about to close, I would like to bring two more quick points to the attention of the House. Let me first appreciate the kindness of all those who generously donated truckloads of wood, food and clothes to the victims. During the ice storm most Canadians were generous and helpful to each other. However, there were a few complaints that some unscrupulous businessmen were profiteering by selling gasoline, batteries, et cetera at much higher prices than normal. The Minister of Industry acknowledged this and has said that it was not illegal in Canada.

As parliamentarians we should work to prevent profiteering, at least during any disaster. I am prepared to present a private member's bill to this effect later on in the House.

I would also like to mention that another precious commodity we lack in our country that may be the most needed during any disaster is human blood. We often hear that the Red Cross is out of stock. We should be generous in donating blood and maintaining a reasonable stock of blood. Again, we have to assure Canadians and win their trust in our blood supply being safe.

I conclude my remarks by acknowledging on behalf of the people of Surrey Central the courage of our eastern country men and women in facing the ice storm. We pledge to learn from what has happened to them. We pledge to ensure that these lessons are not lost on the federal government.

Congratulations to all those who survived this disaster. I would also like to thank all those volunteers who worked tirelessly throughout this disaster.

[Justice, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the householders which I send to my constituents in Surrey Central include a survey of the political issues of the day. My constituents take this opportunity to share their views with me. Quite often I receive detailed opinions on the Liberal government's mismanagement and lack of accountability.

One of my constituents said that all Members of Parliament should be spending more time and energy on issues that are of importance to their constituencies, such as crime, safety, health, education, tax relief and the deplorable justice system. In fact the most unified response shows that we should be getting tougher with criminals. They tell me that violent criminals aged 14 to 15 should be tried in adult court. Reform the parole system so that violent offenders serve their full sentence.

The Liberals are not listening to grassroots Canadians and the government's agenda does not respond to what Canadians want. Why will the Liberals not focus on the issues that concern our constituents?

[Foreign Aid, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has sent over $10 million in food aid to North Korea. We have leaked documents that show the minister knew there were problems with distribution. Canadians want to be sure the food goes only to the starving civilians. World food monitors in North Korea can account for only 30%.

Despite knowing the food distribution system had problems, how could the CIDA minister justify her decision to send $10 million in food aid and how does she know where it went, for example not to the brutal army?

[Credibility, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want accountability and credibility restored in their politicians and the political system.

Canadians feel that this House is too partisan to focus on important issues. When politicians look in the mirror each morning, they should see 100,000 people they were elected to represent, not their party whip.

Canadians want their politicians to learn from their mistakes and take their jobs seriously. Canadians want their politicians to listen to the debate in the House and then make up their minds as to how to vote, not just come out of their groundhog holes at voting time and vote as they are told to vote. Many members occasionally did not even know what they voted for.

Let us act as responsible democratic law makers. We can restore credibility in politicians by awakening our consciousness and listening to our own hearts and the 100,000 hearts that elected us, not the party whip.

Let us be reminded to be credible and accountable to the people who elected us.

[Year 2000, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I warn the Liberals that Canadians do not accept the government's failure to guarantee that the computers of federal departments will work properly and not crash in the year 2000.

The Canadian public will suffer when programs and services are seriously disrupted.

Most computers use two digits to represent the year and do not recognize 00 as the year 2000. The Liberals have not properly budgeted for billions of dollars to fix this problem. Only one-third of federal departments have a strategy for dealing with the crisis.

The Liberals should prepare and table in parliament a contingency plan to address possible failure. The Liberals have not addressed the long term legal implications of failure. The slow and haphazard planning of the Liberals is interfering with the year 2000 compliance.

The auditor general has already lambasted the Liberals for their tardiness. Canadians are watching the Liberals fudge the year 2000 project.