Gurmant Grewal

[Marriage, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in a Canadian Alliance motion in 1999, this House, by a vote of 216 to 55, endorsed the traditional definition of marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Some people live together in a relationship outside of this definition. They deserve our respect and protection; they already have rights.

The issue of the definition of marriage should be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada, not by the courts. Let the people have their say through their members of Parliament to make the laws of this land. A few special interest groups or individuals should not be allowed to pull stunts and intimidate Parliament.

Marriage is an integral part of the family. Let us save it. Let us not forget, stronger families build a stronger nation.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will the hon. member where the difficulty is.

Wherever the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard goes and on whatever issue, he promises everything to everyone, but he does not know what his record is. When he was finance minister for nine year, he increased gasoline taxes from 8.5¢ to 10¢ and called it a deficit financing tax. But now, there is no deficit, so why is there a deficit financing tax? Why did he not eliminate it at the same time the deficit was eliminated? That is where the difficulty lies.

Another difficulty is that the government is greedy for taxes. It charges taxes on taxes. It charges GST, the most hated tax in Canadian history, on taxes. Those taxes, whether provincial or federal, are neither goods nor services. That is what GST is supposed to be, but it is being charged on taxes. Can members think of any country in the world where the government is charging taxes on taxes?

The weak Liberal government takes in $4.7 billion in fuel taxes and on top of that it collects $2.25 billion taxes in GST. Out of all this money, how much does it spend on infrastructure development? That is what the gas tax is for. It is to be spent on roads, bridges and infrastructure development. Do members know how much it spends? Just 1.7% of the money. Where does the remaining money go that is collected from gasoline taxes and GST? It goes to that big black hole. The Liberal government is mismanaging taxpayers' money.

If the hon. member really wants to find out where the difficulty is, it is with the government's mismanagement, greediness and arrogance.

The parliamentary secretary has said that it is a provincial problem. That is what the government always does on any federal issue, it transfers the responsibility to the provinces. Even in the case of mad cow disease, SARS and anything else, it will transfer the problem to the provinces.

In this case, with the facts and figures I have quoted, I will tell the hon. member to look into the facts and not simply transfer the responsibility but do something on that side. The government takes so much money away from the provinces, but it gives the provinces only 1.7%. That is where the difficulty is.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance motion concerning gas taxes and infrastructure development needs.

In recent years I have witnessed the burden of gas taxes on my constituents. As oil prices have soared so has the government's take in gasoline taxes.

On average, taxes account for 42% of the total consumer price. To add insult to injury or fuel to the fire, the Liberal government collects GST on gasoline taxes. That is charging taxes on taxes. Taxes are neither goods nor services. How can the government charge GST on taxes? This practice is shameful.

In 2001 and again last year I moved a motion in the House calling upon the government to at least stop charging GST on federal and provincial gasoline taxes. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not shown any interest in that idea. The government continues to collect about 2¢, depending upon the province, on every litre of gasoline sold in Canada.

Every day B.C. motorists battle traffic congestion to get to work, daycare, shopping, school and so on. As the population of the Lower Mainland continues to swell, the need for roads and bridges becomes ever more apparent.

Last year the B.C. transportation minister estimated that the province's transportation infrastructure required $10 billion worth of investment by the year 2012. That figure is well beyond the government's present ability to pay. Premier Campbell launched a $600 million program for much needed improvements to roads in February, paid for in part by an additional 3.5¢ per litre gasoline tax. However, there is no room to add even one single extra penny at the pumps. Gas prices are already too high. The money to fund transportation improvements must come from somewhere else.

Hence, the B.C. government is soliciting bids for a 55 year lease of the Coquihalla Highway to a private firm in exchange for a one time payment of roughly $500 million. The firm would initially be allowed to charge private autos $13, up from the current $10 per vehicle, and increase the amount over time.

The city of Surrey has immediate plans for road improvements, repaving and new traffic lights. However, these needed improvements come with a hefty price tag. While the city usually spends $15 million annually on its streets and highways, this year the budget has almost doubled. Work will progress on the Fraser Highway which is going to be turned into four lanes, with sidewalks, a median and more traffic lights. In Surrey, 88th Avenue and 80th Avenue will be repaved.

Provinces and municipalities have a crying need for more money to cover transportation infrastructure costs. This is especially true in urban areas which continue to grow. Transportation infrastructure is handling more traffic than it was designed for and the public is paying the price.

Look at how much time is wasted on the roads. It is almost criminal that the federal government continues to rake in millions of dollars in gas taxes while sending practically nothing back to the provinces.

The Liberals rake in $4.7 billion in fuel tax revenue every year. In addition, they collect $2.25 billion in GST on gasoline. The federal gas tax, including GST, cost an average Canadian $221 last year. In 2001-02 the Liberals transferred a minuscule $118 million to the provinces for highway and road development. That is 1.7% of the gross they have taken from the provinces.

In comparison, the U.S. government spends 84% of its gasoline revenues on road-related infrastructure. Our provinces even do better, spending 91% of the money they collect in gas taxes on transport-related infrastructure projects. Of the little money the Liberals do spend on transportation infrastructure, 99% of that small amount goes to provinces east of Ontario. Does the government not realize that there are roads outside of Quebec and Ontario?

Last November the Prime Minister's caucus task force on urban issues, after an 18 month study, rejected the idea of sharing fuel tax revenues as it was too complicated. While acknowledging cities needed more infrastructure cash, the task force claimed Ottawa needed the money more than the provinces. Can anyone imagine? Would it be that the government needed to use that money for more billion dollar gun registries? Or maybe more sponsorship contracts for Liberal friends? I cannot understand that.

The former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, claims that if he becomes Prime Minister he will share the federal gasoline tax with the cities. Call me a cynic, but why did the hon. member not deliver cash strapped cities a share of the gas tax during his nine year tenure as finance minister? Where was he for those nine years?

Members will recall that this is the same finance minister who in 1995 raised the gas tax from 8.5¢ per litre to 10¢ per litre as a deficit fighting measure. He then conveniently forgot to reverse the increase once the deficit was brought under control with the efforts of the official opposition. In 2001-02 alone this 1.5¢ per litre deficit fighting tax took $705 million out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

The Canadian Alliance believes that taxes which are imposed for a specific purpose, like this deficit fighting tax, should be used for that purpose alone and removed when no longer required, as in this case. The former finance minister obviously does not subscribe to that view.

Even though the price of gas has fallen in recent months, it is still much too high. Retail prices this week were between 75¢ and 79.9¢ per litre in Vancouver. Canadians are spending considerably more to fill up their cars than a year ago. Yesterday's news does not bode well for the future. Oil prices surged to $32.36 U.S. a barrel, the highest close on the New York Stock Exchange since mid-March, a 63¢ increase per day.

What will the government do? Nothing. If we were to drive around, we would see gas prices at 55¢ per litre at 8 o'clock in the morning. At 10 o'clock, if we were to drive by, no new truck had come to provide new inventory for the gas station, but the price would go up. Oil companies are colluding and the government is doing nothing.

In closing, the government must do something about this. It must eliminate the deficit fighting tax and reduce taxes on gasoline. The government has no right to charge GST on taxes.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

The purpose of Bill C-24 is, first, to restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, riding associations, and candidates, including nominations and party leadership; second, to compensate political parties for the anticipated loss in revenue from large corporate and union donations by way of direct public financing; and finally, to extend the regulatory aspect of the Canada Elections Act in terms of registration and financial accounting to riding associations as well as nomination and leadership candidates.

The bill is yet another instance of the Liberals taking a good idea, bungling it, and turning it into a bad law. It represents a massive shift in the sources of contributions to political parties from the voluntary actions of the people and organizations to a mandatory imposition on all taxpayers. The bill would make all political parties more dependent upon the state and less responsive to the society we live in. It would represent a major intrusion by Elections Canada into internal party matters, both in terms of mandatory registration and the financial reporting requirements for riding associations, as well as time-consuming, ineffective paperwork for nominated and leadership candidates.

Political financing in Canada has long been in need of reform. Since the founding of this great country governments have been trading political favours to pay for political costs. Many scandals have come to light since then. We know of the many Liberal government scandals. However, it is the general hint of corruption that most seriously erodes public confidence in the system.

Someone once said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Modern elections are expensive affairs. Spending by candidates in Canada comes nowhere close to the spending in American elections. With advertising, signs, literature, polling, et cetera, it is lots of money. Most candidates running for federal Parliament spend in the range of $40,000 to $70,000 to get elected. Raising this money has undoubtedly contributed to the growing cynicism about political life.

Regulating party and election financing is essential to maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Canadians suspect that money not only dominates elections but also increasingly corrupts our electoral system. They look at the thousands upon thousands of dollars donated each year by large corporations supposedly because these companies wish to support democracy. They have good reason to be suspicious. Even the Prime Minister said last month in the Toronto Star that, “There is a perception that money can unduly influence the political process”.

A recent study revealed that of the top 25 federal government contractors 17 are major donors to the federal Liberal Party. That is almost 70%. Moreover, these companies donate to the Liberal Party versus all other political parties in the House at a ratio of 6 to 1. At the candidate level, it is dangerous because the ratio is 30 to 1. No wonder the Liberal Party president called the concept “Dumb as a sack full of hammers”.

Major donors are not at all representative of the Canadian economy. Rather, almost uniformly, they tend to be government contractors, regulated industries and companies seeking changes from the government. For example, in 2001 Bombardier made the largest single donation of $142,503 to the Liberals, and Bombardier was also the second largest federal contractor in 2001 with a total of more than $117 million in contracts. Was it a coincidence? I am not sure, but it was a good investment. It invested in the government party and received contracts worth $117 million in this case.

Some time ago, when I used to be the CIDA critic for the official opposition, I analyzed the data and found out that the investment in the form of a political donation to a political party, which was the government in this case, was a very good investment with huge returns.

If the list of donors were truly representative of the Canadian economy we would expect to see some major retailers, software companies or restaurant chains, but they do not show up on the donors list. Donations instead come from financial institutions, transportation companies, communication or media industries. Most of which are federally regulated businesses.

The Prime Minister is determined to pass Bill C-24, even having gone so far as to threaten an election over the bill because of the rebels in his caucus. Why, after 10 years as the head of government, has he finally become so passionate over campaign finance reform? The Prime Minister's sudden conversion probably has everything to do with cleaning up the image of his government, for so long plagued with scandal after scandal, and with every suggestion of corruption, fraud, cronyism, favouritism and helping Liberal friends. That is the sole reason why the Prime Minister is passionate in having Bill C-24 passed. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the idea is good but the government is turning it into a bad law.

A recent poll by the Liberals' own pollster suggested 45% of the public thought them corrupt. The Prime Minister should be restoring transparency and accountability to the political process. This bill is too little, too late.

Currently we are considering Motion No. 12. We will not support Motion No. 12. It deals with riding associations, referred to as electoral districts, and the information they must transfer to the Chief Electoral Officer and the ability of an association to transfer funds et cetera. However, in proposed section 71(1) it states that the riding associations of a political party “may” provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the information. It is an option. Some associations may or may not. The problem is not resolved and therefore, I will be opposing the motion.

The Prime Minister is wrong to rush through this legislation. There should have been a genuine national debate on party financing.

Again, Bill C-24 would fail to stop the awarding of government contracts, especially untendered contracts, loans and grants to supporters of the governing party that is in power. It would only make it difficult to establish a link.

It would not correct the 50 candidate rule. It would not end the practice of making patronage appointments to fill returning officer positions based on the Prime Minister's recommendation and not on merit. And there are many other issues.

This is a good idea. The government is yielding to the pressure from members of the Canadian Alliance who have spoken to this many times, as did they when it was the Reform Party.

I will be oppose Motion No. 12 in the vote

[Petitions, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the final petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illness and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are concerned about the poor pay and working conditions for rural route mail couriers and believe these mail couriers should be permitted to bargain collectively, a right held by their urban counterparts.

The petitioners thereby request that Parliament repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to present a petition signed by 425 people. The petitioners request that Parliament invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the B.C. Court of Appeal decision and reinstate subsection (4) of section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, making the possession of child pornography illegal and, by so doing, reinforce and reaffirm our objection to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the process for granting a temporary resident permit, also called a visitor's visa, is unfair, mismanaged and full of irregularities.

The government allows for front line locally hired staff in our foreign missions who are under-resourced, underqualified, poorly trained and who compromise the honesty of the system.

Often genuine visitors are rejected while others get through. When will the weak government restore credibility, integrity and fairness in the visitor's visa process?

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude the debate on Bill C-205, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, or the disallowance procedure for statutory instruments.

Before I begin the debate I would like to take this opportunity to thank members from all five parties in the House who have contributed to the debate, particularly those members who have signed the supporting letter in support of the bill.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the co-chair, the vice-chair, the general counsel and the very hard working staff of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for his hard work and cooperation on this issue.

Regulations play a significant role in our lives, whether good or bad. Every day everyone is affected by statutory instruments, commonly called regulations.

As many of my colleagues already know, disallowance is one of the traditional means at the disposal of the legislature to control the making of delegated legislation by giving legislators an opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegate of Parliament.

Variants of the disallowance procedure have been in existence in other Commonwealth jurisdictions for many years. The bill is intended to provide a legislative framework for a similar procedure at the federal level.

The bill would provide a legislative basis for the procedure that is currently set out in our standing orders and would extend the application of that procedure to regulations made by agencies or bodies other than the governor in council or ministers of the crown.

I might add that Bill C-205 is consistent with the recommendations made by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I co-chair, and many others, for the reform of the current disallowance procedure.

The Parliament of Canada is the source of all legislative authority that is delegated, not only to the governor in council and ministers, but also to various other regulation-making authorities, such as the CRTC and the Canadian Transportation Agency. When they exercise that delegated authority to make regulations, those entities are exercising a power that finds its source in the House of Commons and in Parliament. Parliament therefore has not only a right but a responsibility to control the exercise of those powers.

For well over 30 years now, regulations made pursuant to the enactments of Parliament have been subject to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. The members and the staff of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations have painstakingly reviewed thousands of federal regulations.

However effective parliamentary scrutiny must be accompanied by effective parliamentary control. This was not always the case.

The gap was partly addressed in 1986 when the government of the day agreed to be bound by standing orders providing for a disallowance procedure. However, because of the non-legislative nature of our standing orders, the current procedure could only deal with a portion of the regulations subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

When the current procedure was first implemented, it was stated to be an experiment, and with its success leading to a statutory disallowance procedure. The experiment has been a success and this success justifies us in extending the scope of the disallowance procedure in order that parliamentary control coincides fully with parliamentary scrutiny. This can only be achieved by means of legislation, and this is what Bill C-205 is about.

The procedure set out in the bill has been endorsed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. I am proud to recognize that Bill C-205 is really a work of the collective efforts of members of all parties in the House, particularly those who now sit on the scrutiny committee.

More than three decades after the enactment of the Statutory Instruments Act, I believe the time has come for the Parliament of Canada to give itself the means to ensure full democratic control of federal delegated legislation. If passed, the legislation will be a major historic milestone in restoring accountability and in democratic and parliamentary reforms.

By placing the current disallowance procedure on a statutory footing it will make it possible to close the gap between parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary control. It will also ensure that the procedure is legally effective.

This legislative proposal has been carefully designed to allow parliamentarians to exercise their responsibility for the effective oversight of regulations, while providing the flexibility required by regulation-makers to respond appropriately to a disallowance.

I am happy to say that the concerns raised by some members earlier did not go to the principle of the bill but focused on some perceived practical difficulties with the bill as it stands now. These comments have been very useful, and I am pleased to report that the members of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations have had discussions as to how the bill might be improved. A consensus was reached among all members on proposals for amendments that will address the issues that were raised.

As I have always said, this is a non-partisan issue. It is the responsibility of all members of the House to make sure parliamentary control over delegated legislation always applies.

Should the House agree to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights I can assure the members that it is my intention to propose those amendments in order to address the concerns raised.

Bill C-205 is intended to ensure that parliamentarians are in a position to exercise their responsibility for the effective oversight of the exercise of the legislative powers they entrust to various delegates.

I will conclude with two main issues. First, the disallowance procedure has to be on a statutory footing, which the bill would accomplish. Second, the delegated authority to make regulations has been applied to the issuing of statutory instruments by governor in council, ministers, agencies and boards, but that Parliament's scrutiny only be applied to the regulations or statutory instruments made by the governor in council and ministers and not those made by the various agencies and boards. Knowing that 80% of the laws in this country are made by regulations or statutory instruments, it is very important that Parliament have the authority to scrutinize and review the regulations made by all agencies and boards.

Therefore, with the adoption of the bill, 100% of the federal regulations will be coming under the scrutiny of Parliament. I urge all the members to vote to send the bill to committee. I thank members in advance for their support on this important initiative.

[Statutory Instruments Act, June 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-205 is a little bit technical. Many members are asking me some questions about the bill since I am the sponsor of the bill. I ask for unanimous consent that my concluding remarks, which were originally for five minutes, be extended to approximately ten minutes.