Gurmant Grewal

[Competition Act, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-248, an act to amend the Competition Act with respect to the efficiency defence for merger proposals.

The official opposition's chief critic for industry, the hon. member for Peace River, unfortunately cannot speak to this bill due to some urgency, but he has done quite a bit of work on this issue and is very interested in it.

This bill was introduced in the last session of parliament but as the member said, it died on the order paper.

Bill C-248 is a deceptively short bill with only one clause and two subclauses. However there is more to the bill than meets the eye.

The purpose of the private member's bill seems to be that the enactment amends the Competition Act to clarify the competition tribunal's power to make or not make an order in the case of a merger when gains in efficiency are expected or when the merger would create or strengthen a dominant market position.

Section 96 of the Competition Act specifies that a merger may be approved by the competition tribunal even if it substantially lessens or is likely to prevent competition within a specific market, trade or industry as long as those advocating the merger can prove that such a move would bring about or would likely bring about gains in efficiency that would be greater than and would offset the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition.

I appreciate the intent of the hon. member in bringing forward this bill but when we look at the details, we find that this is mere tinkering.

Section 96 further instructs the tribunal to consider whether such gains in efficiency will result in a significant increase in the real value of exports or a significant substitution of domestic products for imported products. The Competition Act is clear that a redistribution of income between two or more persons or groups cannot be considered an efficiency. In other words, if a proposed merger will benefit one person or group to the equal detriment of others, that cannot be considered an efficiency.

Bill C-248 would create two new subsections for section 96, subsections (4) and (5), to further instruct the tribunal on the consideration of efficiencies in a merger case. I would argue that these instructions would muddy the waters and quite possibly stand merger review on its head.

The motivation behind Bill C-248 was the competition tribunal's decision to allow the merger of Superior Propane and ICG Propane against the wishes of the competition commissioner. I agree with the commissioner that the merger probably should not have gone ahead. I was pleased to hear that the competition bureau won its appeal at the federal court and that this case will be heard again by the tribunal. I would like to see the process run its course.

The hon. member from Pickering has crafted a private member's bill that he thinks will fix the problem. I commend his initiative and efforts. However, I have trouble with reactionary law or amendments tinkering with existing laws that are designed to resolve a specific situation. This is not the way to make coherent legislation that will stand the test of time.

Currently when considering gains in efficiency, the tribunal does not discriminate between groups as long as one group does not benefit at the expense of another group, which is considered merely a redistribution of income.

Overall efficiency gains are the main issue. The distribution is not important. However proposed subsection (4) would require that the majority of benefits derived from gains in efficiency will be passed on to customers and consumers. The amendment proposed by the member from Pickering would require the tribunal to favour consumer interests over producer interests. This is a serious change in tone and direction. I am not convinced it would benefit the economy as a whole.

Subsection (5) would disallow the efficiency defence entirely should the merger result in the creation or even the strengthening of a dominant market position. This amendment would require the tribunal to discriminate against dominant players. In a country with a domestic market as small as Canada's, it may not make economic sense in a number of sectors.

Unlike the member from Pickering, I do not believe that dominant players in the market automatically are abusing their dominant market positions. This is presuming guilt before innocence. I also do not see much merit in enshrining outright discrimination against dominant players in the Competition Act. It is not fair. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dominant player in a market but subsection (5) could have the effect of preventing dominant players from emerging even if that is the best thing for the market.

I would argue that this might not be a good strategy in a global economy. We should not allow the tribunal's hands to be tied by proposed subsection (5). That is what it will do. It will tie its hands. The tribunal must be able to make decisions on a case by case basis.

The bill talks about a specific scenario but it has a broad spectrum of implications. It implies that the bill does not want real competition but a regulated competition. That is the difference. We want real competition in the market, not a regulated competition of a few industries under strict conditions. It should be the market forces that dictate free and fair competition in the market, not artificially unfair conditions. It is only tinkering.

To further make my point, I will quote a recent article in the Globe and Mail which discusses a draft report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Canada's Competition Bureau is plagued by an inconsistent policy framework, hampered by national monopolies, undercut by a lack of resources and tainted with a reputation for having no independence.

The competition bureau should be independent.

The bureau should be turned into a stand-alone agency, reporting to parliament through the industry minister...Such independence would help change the perception that the bureau's decisions are subject to political influence. However, the onus is on the Prime Minister...to make changes required to give the bureau more independence.

The report also states that laws that require Canadian ownership and control in several sectors, especially airlines, banks and bookstores, have prevented competition policy from dealing adequately with issues such as market power and monopoly.

Of course there are other issues such as enforcement and other things but I will not go there. In a nutshell, important decisions should not be subjected to political pressures to protect national competition interests.

I will support sending the bill to the industry committee, but I will not support the contents of the bill and the effect it will have on the market.

[Terrorism, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, terrorism and organized crime are interlinked. Terrorism is visible, violent and emotional so it is scary. Organized crime is latent, hidden and invisible so it is given less attention. However its effect is long term. It undermines the economy and is a root cause of many social evils at high cost to taxpayers.

Terrorists thrive on organized crime. Drugs, fraud, human and firearms smuggling, extortion and money laundering are common symptoms. Due to recent heightened security potential terrorists may shift to organized crime to raise funds, strengthen themselves and wait to strike at the appropriate time.

The success or failure of our war on terror hinges on the ability and willingness of Liberals to fight terror and organized crime simultaneously. The government should create a synergy by integration and co-ordination of its resources, policy and legislation.

At a town hall meeting Surrey Central constituents told me they were afraid and that they believe the government is not doing enough to protect them. They expect no less.

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

You are right, Madam Speaker. I am coming back to the point, but I am giving some examples of what happened and how the issue was addressed.

To continue, Prime Minister Trudeau at that time said:

They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail--

--I do not think it is the purpose of a Government to right the past. It cannot re-write history. It is our purpose to be just in our time, and that is what we have done by bringing in the Charter of Rights.

Also in 1994 a conversation took place in the House in which the minister for multiculturalism at the time summarized the government's position. She said:

Seeking to halt the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments...We share the desire to heal those wounds.

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future.

Since my time has almost expired I will say that the hon. member is facing unfavourable odds in terms of having the motion passed by the House. The behaviour of the prime ministers past and present does not bode well for the fate of the motion.

Moreover, if it is decided that we need to consider the wider implications of this issue, what happens if we decide in the debate today that recognition ought to be given to the Armenian genocide? Does it mean that the other long ago wrongs perpetrated against other groups are also to be regarded as the collective responsibility of the Canadian people?

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I highly appreciate the interest expressed by both communities in the work we do as parliamentarians.This is a very emotional and controversial matter. I have had the opportunity to visit both Armenia and Turkey. My heart goes out to the families and the survivors of this dark era in human history.

There has been more loss of life on this planet due to man made wars than to natural calamities. We all sadly remember the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi. We know of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the name of civil and ethnic wars. Humankind should learn from the horrible experiences of the past and make sure they are not repeated.

I also took part in a private members' debate on a motion asking the Liberal government to cause the British crown to present an official apology to the Acadian people for the wrongs done to them in its name between 1755 and 1763. That debate went nowhere.

Today I rise with misgivings about what the Liberal government will do in this debate. I regret that I cannot be more positive in my outlook, but I do not want to try to fool anyone and I do not want either the Turkish or the Armenian communities to be hoodwinked by this Liberal government with its weak backbone.

I want to be very clear from the outset that the government will not recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 or apologize to anyone for anything done wrong in Canada or abroad. There are many examples in Canada which I would like to refer to the House. Let me remind the House of the 1914 incident involving 376 ship passengers who were British subjects and arrived on the ship named Komagata Maru . They were not allowed to land on Canadian soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race and country of origin.

The policy had its origin in the 1880s when the Canadian government first imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants. The government erected a variety of barriers until 1962.

The passengers of the Komagata Maru thought they had the right to enter Canada because they were British subjects. Ninety per cent of the passengers on the ship were Sikhs and the rest were Hindus and Muslims, all from Punjab state in northern India.

Sikh soldiers had served throughout the British Empire. They thought that they should be able to work wherever the British flag was flying. After two months of detention in Vancouver harbour, the government brought in the cruiser HMCS Rainbow which aimed its guns at the Komagata Maru . The ship was escorted away, with 352 passengers still on board. It was a bitter and disappointing moment for the friends watching the ship disappear. A voyage that began on April 4 did not end until September 29 in Calcutta, India, where the police opened fire and killed 19 of those passengers. Those remaining were arrested.

In a more tolerant Canada, the Komagata Maru remains a powerful symbol for Sikhs and one that other Canadians should understand. As a consequence we are beginning to reassess our past. Giving attention to the Komagata Maru is part of the process. Do we think that this government will offer an apology to community members for the Komagata Maru incident? I do not think so.

How about the Chinese internees who are demanding an apology, along with 10 or so other groups? Promises for apologies and recognition have been used to buy political votes. Both the current Prime Minister and Prime Minister Mulroney also promised to offer redress to the Ukrainians and both have failed to do so.

Let me also mention an exchange that took place in the House of Commons about an apology in regard to the Canadian government and the internment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war. Prime Minister Trudeau said on June 29, 1984:

There is no way in which we can relive the history of that period. In that sense, we cannot redress what was done. We can express regret collectively, as we have done. I do not see how I can apologize for some historic event to which we or these people in this House were not a party. We can regret that it happened. But why mount to great heights of rhetoric in order to say that an apology is much better than an expression of regret? This I cannot too well understand.

Why does Mulroney not apologize for what happened during the Second World War to mothers and fathers of people sitting in this House who went to concentration camps? I know some of them, Mr. Speaker.

[Armenia, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 328 which states:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

I appreciate the sentiments, the emotion, the remembrance and the sense that is at the heart of the motion.

Earlier I had the opportunity to speak on the same issue through a motion moved by the hon. member for Brampton Centre who did a great deal of work on this issue. He even caused the matter to go before the Canadian heritage committee and forced the committee to issue a report.

A delegation from Canada's Armenian community visited me in my House of Commons office. I also received information from the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. I highly appreciate the interest expressed by both communities--

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his keen observation. He is a very keen observer in many areas and has been highlighting some of the weaknesses of the government. He has done a perfect job as critic many times.

He made a valid point. The hon. member mentioned bail. I will not comment on the particular bail because the issue may still be in front of the courts. However, in general and from a broader perspective, the government is very lenient and our policies are very lenient. The amazing thing is that our overall policies, which we derive from the Liberal government, are policies of reverse onus. That is very wrong.

When prospective refugees come here we want them to prove that they are genuine refugees. Why does the government not do its job? Similarly when terrorists and criminals are arrested, why would we believe only reverse onus? I think that there is a fundamental flaw in the vision, or I would say lack of vision, of the Liberal government, and I do not know how to correct its vision. We cannot do that. The government has been so weak and arrogant that I do not know where we stand.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Surrey Central on the opposition supply day motion regarding border security. Surrey Central, the constituency I represent, is one of the largest constituencies in Canada in population. It has a high population of immigrants. Also it is in close proximity to the U.S. border, so I will be making my remarks from the point of view of some practical experience and what my constituents who come to my office tell me. Therefore it will be a more practical point of view.

The motion asks the government to take action on a number of policy fronts. Victory in this war against terrorism depends as much on our immigration and border policies as it does on our defence, intelligence and other policies. Specifically, the motion asks the government to protect our borders and our trading relationships with the United States by providing immigration and customs officers with full peace officer status in order to allow them to detain and arrest suspected terrorists. It also asks the government to move customs officers out of the CCRA into a law enforcement agency.

Canadian customs officers not only process travellers and commercial goods but also monitor and control the importation of firearms, drugs and other goods. If they are to do their job of law enforcement they must be given the resources, training and powers of law enforcement officers.

If the mandate of the customs officers is to be tax collectors then they should be given calculators. If their mandate is to protect Canadians at our borders then they should be given guns. At this time they have neither calculators nor guns.

In the auditor general's April 2000 report, he noted that the students as well as the long time customs officers are deficient in training in immigration law, drug enforcement and vehicle examination. We know that rather than taking this issue seriously the government has hired part time students to monitor our border, without proper training and without proper tools and resources. The Liberal government, instead of giving them tools to do their job, have cut 488 customs and trade employees since 1994 even though their work has increased.

Next the motion calls for all spontaneous refugees without any documents or those who are hiding their identity to be detained until their identity can be established and verified and also their health checked so that they do not pose any health risks. If it is determined that they do not pose a threat to the safety and security of citizens of our country and that of our neighbours, only then should they be allowed to mix with the general population of the country.

The weak and arrogant Liberal government rejected a 1998 House of Commons standing committee report recommending increased use of detention to deal with undocumented or improperly documented refugee claimants. I am not talking about genuine refugees. I am talking about those who are posing as refugees but are bogus.

The motion asks Canada to create a list of safe third countries. We know that the United Kingdom does not allow refugees from safe third countries, like Canada, the United States and other safe countries in the economic union and others. A safe third country provision has been in law since 1989, but the government has failed to designate any countries. We do not have a list of safe third countries.

The government insists on increasing police presence and powers inside Canada rather than at the border.

I want to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance supports immigration. Our policy declaration clearly states:

--we see Canada as a land built by immigrants, and will continue to welcome new immigrants...We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees--

The motion is designed to put an end to the practice of people destroying their documents in transit so that they cannot be deported. According to the auditor general, 60% of the refugee claimants who come to Canada and apply for refugee status come without any documents.

By asking for the tightening our immigration laws, we are calling on the government to get up to speed with international developments. Other countries are tightening their immigration laws, particularly after the incidents of September 11. If Canada does not do likewise it will continue to be a safe haven for people who want to break the law. We certainly risk being shut out of trade relationships with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. We do well over $1.5 billion a day in trade with the Americans. The United States accounts for approximately 82% of Canada's exports in goods and services. We learned today that the Americans are planning to implement section 110 of their immigration act, which would impose entrance and exit restrictions on people moving into and out of the United States. Section 110 would cause some serious problems.

How did we reach this position? Because of the weakness and arrogance of the weak Liberal government. With a recession looming, such a restriction imposed by the Americans could have a devastating effect on Canada's economy. When the Alliance proposed a motion on September 18, I stood in the House and said that the U.S. congress would move with or without us. I am sorry to say that once again I have been proven right.

The motion also continues the Alliance's long term commitment to national security, robust law enforcement and a strong Canadian armed forces. With its cuts to each of these areas, the Liberal government has left us vulnerable. The motion seeks to correct this oversight.

Another area is our frontline offices and our foreign missions. I commend our officers in foreign services for their dedication and hard work. They have their own problems, which I will talk about some other day, but I want to mention corruption in our foreign missions.

We have read in the newspapers, and there are documented reports, that about 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen in Hong Kong and 788 taped computer files were altered. Who did it? Why did they do it? Because they will sell them to organized criminals. Unwanted people who are a threat to Canadian security will abuse our system.

We also know that money has been stolen from many Canadian embassies. Bribes have been taken by our officials who issue visas. I reported a case in which action was taken. The authorities found out that corruption was taking place and bribes were being taken in New Delhi and Islamabad, so they fired some locally hired employees. Many investigations are continuing. The government should also pay attention to that issue. Foreign officials who are monitoring our immigration policies abroad are our front line of defence.

In conclusion I would like to say that organized crime and terrorism are two different things but are interlinked. Now, because of the incidents of September 11, there is a knee-jerk reaction and we are focusing on terrorism, but I remind the government that it should integrate its resources and policies. We should not leave organized crime out of it. Organized crime is latent, invisible and hidden, whereas terrorism is explicit and its effects are evident. I would remind the government that there should be a synergy and an implementation of resources to combat these two areas.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the men and women at immigration and customs for their hard work and dedication.

A few years ago a couple arrived at the Vancouver International Airport from Australia and uttered the magic word refugee. Their refugee processing began and they applied for financial assistance, which they received. After spending two months vacationing at taxpayers' expense in Canada, they returned home.

The official opposition has asked for adequate resources and training to be provided to the employees of these departments. They should be provided with the appropriate legislation, regulations and tools of the trade so they can do their jobs effectively. A few minutes ago the minister and her parliamentary secretary defended the status quo.

Would the hon. member agree that this motion from the official opposition demanding the appropriate resources and training for customs and immigration officers to do their jobs effectively is a fair demand?

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the minister of immigration again used some very uncomplimentary terms. She accused the official opposition of fearmongering.

Members will recall that a few years ago 2,200 blank visa forms were stolen and 788 computer files were altered in our immigration computer system called CAIPS in our Hong Kong foreign mission. Foreign missions are the first line of defence for us. Those altered files were naturally the files of organized criminals attempting to abuse our immigration system and enter Canada. Those people may have been organized criminals or terrorists. We do not know.

Would the parliamentary secretary tell the House what his government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign missions which are our first line of defence?

It has been shown that some locally hired employees in those missions are engaged in corruption and fraud. Some time ago I lodged a complaint with the ministry and the RCMP. A special squad of the RCMP went to New Delhi and Islamabad, and they fired four locally hired employees in Delhi and three in Islamabad based on information I had provided. However I have never heard anything from the government side of the House on what the government has done to curtail corruption in our foreign embassies.

Could the parliamentary secretary to the minister comment on this issue and highlight anything in the bill about which he boasted so enthusiastically?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I forgot to move an amendment. Can I move it now if I have consent?