Gurmant Grewal

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am very pleased to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

In the last session I spoke to Bill C-2 which was passed in the House. The Canadian Alliance or Reform Party at the time opposed the bill. The Liberals should be ashamed because Bill C-2 had so many serious flaws in it that it was not only undemocratic but almost anti-democratic. Bill C-2 made Canada look like a dictatorship.

Among other technical matters Bill C-9, which is an amendment to Bill C-2 passed in the last session, stipulates that if the chief electoral officer wishes to examine certain things like alternative voting processes such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the approval of both House and Senate committees. Clause 2, which we intend to amend, states:

The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respecting alternative voting means, and may devise and test an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or byelection. Such a process may not be used for an official vote without the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters.

The term Senate is used and that is why the amendment is being proposed. I congratulate the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière who moved an amendment which reads:

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 1 with the following:

“committee of the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters, after consultation with the committee of the Senate that normally considers those matters.”

The Canadian Alliance supports the amendment because it takes the role of the Senate out of the bill. Our policy book, which is dictated by grassroots members of the Canadian Alliance, states in section 71:

We will support the election of senators who would then have a democratic mandate to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. We will further support the distribution of Senate seats on an equal basis determined through constitutional discussion with the provinces and territories.

The Canadian Alliance advocates Senate reform. Senators try to do their job the best way they can. As co-chair of the Senate and House of Commons Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I had the opportunity to work directly with senators. There are senators who work very hard. There is wisdom in the other chamber and we look forward to the sober thought from the other place.

There are senators who want to have a veto in our elections act on how Canadians elect members to represent them in the highest chamber. The Senate wants to have a veto in the bill, a veto the weak and arrogant Liberal government is allowing in the bill. That is a serious concern. Senators are elected in other countries. Our largest trading partner, the U.S, elects its senators.

The point which would motivate us in the Chamber to support the amendment is that senators are not accountable to constituents because they do not have any constituencies. They do not represent constituencies. They are appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada and tend to be accountable to him.

I commend B.C. Senator Gerry St. Germain, who has offered, and who is prepared to resign from his senate seat provided the Prime Minister appoints an elected senator to the Senate. That senator has made a bold step and I appreciate his intention.

The Canadian Alliance members support the amendment. Under the current legislation, only approval of the House of Commons committee is required. Giving the Chief Electoral Officer the freedom to examine innovative alternatives that could help to modernize our electoral process is a good thing but it should be limited to the elected members who represent Canadians in the House of Commons.

On this side of the House, our ears perk up when we see the use of the word Senate, particularly in reference to it interfering in the election process. Are the Liberals preparing to have the Senate kill any innovative ideas the Chief Electoral Officer may propose? Maybe we cannot trust the Liberal government. The Canadian Alliance believes that the voters, not the government, should decide whether a party or a candidate is worthy of a vote.

As all opposition parties will be supporting the amendment, it is now up to the Liberals. If they do not accept the amendment, it would be another example of how they are making Bill C-9 anti-democratic.

[Vaisakhi, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 302 years ago on Vaisakhi , Siri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, who was a saint, a soldier, a poet, a philosopher, a reformer and a guru, created Khalsa , the pure Sikh, based on the principles of equality of all humankind, justice, honesty, hard work, peace, love, courage and community service.

These are the very principles of ethics and morality lacking or diminishing in today's world, including in some old line political establishments in our great country.

We in our party wish to congratulate Sikhs in Canada and around the world. In the spirit of unity, peace, progress, prosperity, religious freedom and mutual respect within the cultural diversity of Canada, the Canadian Alliance, the Official Opposition of Canada, invites all members and senators, including government members, and the public in general to room 237-C in Centre Block to celebrate Vaisakhi with us at 4 p.m. today.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Peterborough for asking the question. The hon. member says this foundation was set up a few years ago. That is right. It was set up in 1997, and even when it did not practically exist yet, the government had $800 million shown as a liability and charged to its accounts. The auditor general was very critical about it, but that is another story.

The hon. member mentioned the serious brain drain problems then, but the brain drain problem still continues. Most of the engineering graduates and doctors and nurses leave the country. Last year alone 6,000 doctors and 14,000 nurses left Canada. The figures are very intriguing.

I understand that the hon. member appreciates investing in research and development. We support that intent as well. It is a noble idea. However, the hon. member's party came into power in 1993. It took four years for it to realize this investment. It set up the foundation in 1997. If his party was so interested, where was it for four years? This is too little, too late.

I would encourage the hon. member to put pressure on the government to revisit its priorities. It should set the right priorities and then allocate the money. Rather than distributing some hypothetical or other grants and contributions or favouring its friends, it should invest the money where it would be more productive.

Another point the hon. member mentioned is tax structure. He said the tax structure with respect to research and development in Canada is the best. I doubt that. Our taxes are so high with respect to G-7 and OPEC countries that we are lagging behind in using our taxation structure as a motivation for investors and as a motivation for R and D. I think the hon. member should look into that again. We are really lagging behind.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1997, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the second reading debate on this bill. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert, and I am sure the House will look forward to his comments as well.

Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act, has two components. The first is to add additional funding of $750 million for the Canada foundation for innovation to the economic statement and budget update of October 18, 2000.

The second component involves amending the Financial Administration Act to clarify that parliament must provide explicit authority for any voting by or on behalf of the crown. I will deal with that later.

I will now turn to the first part of the bill, the Budget Implementation Act. The bill seeks to extend funding for the Canada foundation for innovation by $750 million to include operation and maintenance costs for research infrastructure. The bill also proposes to extend funding for the foundation to include the purchase access to international research facilities and research projects. The new funding will be spent over an undefined period of 10 years or more but will be booked in the current fiscal year.

The foundation's purpose is to combine government and private sector funding to enhance education and research infrastructure at post-secondary education institutions and research hospitals. The government stated that the foundation would be funded by an upfront investment of $800 million.

In 1997 funding of the Canada foundation for innovation was included in the deficit as if it were a liability at that time, even though the foundation did not exist by the end of the year. The foundation did not exist but the $800 million funding was included as a liability. This made the government depart from its own accounting policies, practices and principles for the third year in a row in contrast to the Public Sector Accounting and Auditing Board, PSAAB, guidelines. The auditor general called it inappropriate accounting and a parliamentary oversight.

The foundation is not obliged to report the results it achieves with $800 million, and parliament may consequently have difficulty obtaining the information it needs on expenditures.

I will quote from the Canadian Alliance policy. It states:

We will bring the best ideas in business, government and universities together to facilitate the transition to the new economy and position Canada as a global leader. We will also increase support to Canada's research granting councils, and appoint a Chief Scientist of Canada to coordinate science activities in all government departments and ensure that science, not politics, prevails.

Let me make it very clear that the Canadian Alliance supports research and development. We regret that the government has overseen and caused our economy to perform so poorly that it is now necessary for the federal government to step in and apply massive doses, hundreds of millions of dollars, to R and D.

The private sector is not encouraged to do R and D by the government because taxes are high. The government is not only arrogant but weak as well. It lacks vision and we cannot trust it. It is unclear what criteria the Liberals would use in granting decisions made by the foundation, which is to be administered by the Minister of Industry.

During the election campaign, the Canadian Alliance proposed an additional $500 million in R and D funding. We support increased funding for research and development. While we support the objectives of the Canada foundation for innovation, technical innovation would be more likely to happen in an environment of lower taxes and less regulation rather than increased bureaucratic spending with ill-defined funding criteria.

The second component involves amending the Financial Administration Act to clarify that parliament must provide explicit authority for any borrowing on behalf of the crown. The bill would also define regulations surrounding what is considered to be borrowing of money.

The bill would require the Minister of Finance to authorize money borrowing transactions. It would give the finance minister the power to authorize money borrowing transactions under any terms and conditions he considers appropriate.

Finally, the bill would amend an oversight in which the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was removed from the list of crown corporations that are exempt from aspects of the Income Tax Act, reducing the possibility of ministerial intervention in the pension board.

The Canadian Alliance policy on financial administration states:

To ensure transparency, accuracy, and confidence in the government's finances, we will authorize the Auditor General to examine all federal government documents, including those from government agencies and crown corporations. The government will be required to report to the House within one year on how it has dealt with issues raised by the Auditor General. We will apply generally accepted accounting principles to government finances.

We will apply them not in the way that suits the government, but will use generally accepted accounting principles.

The bill would correct a legislative error made two years ago which opened the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to interference by the finance minister in various areas such as cash stripping, appointments, and corporate business plan debt.

The government is again wasting parliamentary time with amendments to correct legislative mistakes it has made. The other day I was debating Bill C-4 and was surprised that the government had to amend its own bill six times. That is how poorly designed it was. The government has to recognize that it must draft bills carefully.

Time and again the official opposition finds that we are holding the flashlight for a weak Liberal government that lacks vision. The problem is that when the government passed the Canadian Wheat Board legislation, it took the CPP investment board out of the Financial Administration Act along with the wheat board.

The fact remains that rather than having excuses from the government, the minister responsible for legislation should be responsible for errors. There should be no mistakes because the minister should be carefully scrutinizing the work the government does.

In conclusion, we support the part of the legislation that corrects the government's mistake of two years ago. We support putting a stop to the finance minister's ability to intervene in the affairs of the pension board.

We have seen the government engage in cash stripping when it comes to the EI account. It stripped $30 billion from that account. We are pleased to put a stop to that.

[Multiculturalism, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the minister has smeared Prince George and Kamloops nationally in parliament and in the Canadian media, but now the Prime Minister is rewarding her by sending her to represent us at the world conference.

Why is the Prime Minister sending this disgraced minister to an international forum to embarrass us on the international stage?

[Multiculturalism, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' world conference on racism will be held in Johannesburg at the end of August. Guess who will represent Canada? It will be the disgraced minister of multiculturalism.

Why on earth would the Prime Minister allow her, of all people, to go to the world conference to represent Canadians?

[Multiculturalism, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the odious remarks of the junior minister for multiculturalism are nothing new.

How could the Prime Minister have confidence in a minister whose job is to promote tolerance when she has a track record of promoting intolerance and division? The only thing she needs to know is that she must resign.

[Multiculturalism, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in denial of the disgraceful conduct of his Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Every major newspaper in the country, anti-racism activists, the mayor of the city she slandered, and even members of the Liberal caucus have said that her forced half-baked apology is not good enough.

Why does she not recognize that she simply cannot continue to function in her position, that she does not have any credibility left, and just resign?

[Education, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the members who participated in the debate, particularly the hon. member for Laval East; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, my friend; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; the hon. member for St. John's West, the former education minister of Newfoundland; and my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.

I also thank all other members who gave me moral support on the issue. I thank those numerous organizations and individuals that have contacted my office, written letters and extended their support for this motion.

Education is an important issue. It has been one of the top issues in national polls for quite some time. It is a non-partisan issue.

Unfortunately in Canada we allow brain drain, but when it comes to brain gain we are weak. We do not take advantage of talent and human resources. We do not let our human resources be productive the way they can be.

In fact I will go a step further. When new immigrants arrive here, their education and credentials are not recognized. It becomes torture for most immigrants to be underproductive or underemployed in their lives. It is a punishment for them to come to this country and remain underemployed.

When we look at the whole situation, it is a 911 call to address the issue. The House has the responsibility to address this issue even though some members mentioned that it is a provincial issue. We are not stepping on any provincial toes on the issue. I would not mind if, in due course, we made some constitutional changes to address this serious issue so that we could make better use of our human resources and develop our human capital. We may have to make some constitutional changes because of a changing world, changes in globalization and in the international development of standards, particularly in education.

We may have to do that one day, but today I am not stepping on any toes. I am simply asking the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada to conduct a feasibility study for negotiating a national standardization of education and to recognize foreign degrees. We are not talking about lowering standards or about giving up anything. We are talking raising the standards.

The developed countries of the world are talking about international standards, whereas we do not even have national standards in education. The government has a confrontational strategy with the provinces, which is why we have the interprovincial trade barriers. This is the time to move forward. It is the time to have national standards. It is the time to eliminate those barriers which restrict our progress.

I have talked to many people on this issue. The intelligentsia, the think tanks, the regulatory bodies, the professional non-government organizations and academia all support the motion. The human rights commissioners even say that we should have national standards.

I will quote one of my friends who said “I am a proud Canadian, but it hurts me the most when my qualifications have different values or recognition in different provinces or different parts of the country.”

In sharing the responsibility dispute, we are losing the opportunity to make the best use of our human resources. I would urge all members of the House to help streamline and co-ordinate education and recognize degrees and credentials. In that spirit, I will ask the hon. members to give unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

[Education, March 28th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ask the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada to perform a feasibility study on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in Canada that may also be applied to recognize foreign academic credentials, degrees, diplomas and professional standing of new immigrants and Canadians in order to enhance the mobility of individuals between provinces and territories and contribute to economic, social and professional progress in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity for the House to debate my private member's Motion No. 232. My motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should ask the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada to perform a feasibility study on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in Canada that may also be applied to recognize foreign academic credentials, degrees, diplomas and professional standing of new immigrants and Canadians in order to enhance the mobility of individuals between provinces and territories and contribute to economic, social and professional progress in Canada.

Education is one of the most important issues on the minds of Canadians, yet is it not covered under the federal jurisdiction in Canada. Due to $22.5 million cuts in social transfer payments to the provinces by the Liberal government since 1993, health and education have been most critically hurt. The effect in quality of health care services is quite evident, but the effect in education services is serious yet latent.

While we suffer from the effect of brain drain, it is essential that we make the best use of brain gain. Enhancing the mobility of people by eliminating educational barriers and recognizing credentials of foreign expatriates could do it.

The motion would not lower Canadian standards in assessing foreign credentials, nor does it challenge provincial licensing bodies. Rather it would provide fair and transparent access to the professional job market and assessment process.

Imagine difficulties faced by new immigrants in settling. They have to deal with new housing, family care, schooling, the household, employment, and they have to adjust to a new environment. The problems are further complicated with inaccurate expectations by new immigrants, illegal work or practices in unregulated professions that cause risks to Canadians. It is also complicated by increased pressure to licence or certify people in human resource shortages.

I have been talking about this since I came to Canada and, like everyone else, experienced firsthand the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense in having my MBA recognized. There was no reason for that hassle.

I have talked the ears off of every possible person, including the cabinet ministers. Finally I saw the single sentence in the throne speech which addressed only part of the concern. I have raised this issue time and again at public gatherings.

I tabled a similar private member's motion, Motion No. 618 in the 36th parliament.

There is a need to make the system accessible and streamlined. There is a need for co-ordination of different levels of government, regulatory bodies, employers and community organizations. There is a need to reduce or eliminate those barriers.

If the House passes this motion, it would help in many ways. Canada would realize the best use of its labour force, professional skills, knowledge and ability to support its growing economy. Canadians would be treated more equally and some disparities between new and old Canadians would be bridged. The country's shortage of doctors, nurses and software engineers, for example, could be alleviated with increased global competition.

It would provide fair and transparent access to the professional job market and assessment process. Rather than allowing new immigrants and those migrating from province to province to be underemployed for too much of their lives, these people would be able to make immediate contributions to the community. This would give Canada a competitive advantage in the global market for meeting manpower needs and enhance the quality of human resources. It would help in the settlement and integration of new immigrants in our society. It would help to remove a burden from our social services.

I had six people in my constituency office who had Ph.D.s. They were underemployed and doing menial jobs. I remember one person in particular who had two doctorate degrees in environmental sciences, one from Germany and the other from India. He had over 20 years experience as a professor and a scientist. He had written 43 research papers in reputable international journals.

He attended promotional seminars by CIC/HRDC in India to lure professionals would like to come to Canada. He applied under the independent category. His degrees fetched him the required points and he was granted immigration very quickly. He resigned from his prestigious job as a professor and scientist. However, once he arrived in Canada he felt like he had been duped of his degrees which had been recognized by Immigration Canada but were not recognized by Canadian departments like HRDC, Agriculture Canada, Health Canada or Environment Canada.

He was almost going crazy while he pumped gas at a gas station to support his family. Imagine a person with double Ph.D.s working in a gas station.

Other frustrated professionals have also told me similar stories. Some were driving cabs, others were working clerical jobs or even janitorial jobs.

I am not talking about lowering standards. I am talking about common sense. Why would a degree in science not be recognized all over the world, for example an M.Sc. in computer science or math? Two plus two always remains four.

Wherever possible, arrangements should be made for upgrading degrees or letting the prospective immigrants know in advance of immigration to Canada of deficiencies in their degrees or courses required before their credentials would be accepted. My motion is aimed at pursuing the government on this matter.

Co-ordination with the provinces and territories and interprovincial co-ordination and standardization of education is also very important. The development of national standards in education is desperately needed, not only to allow easy mobility of people but also to co-op up with globalization and competitive international job market needs.

The chief commissioner of the B.C. human rights commission in a letter written to me said:

I agree that the whole process of recognizing the skills and qualifications of new immigrants needs to be reviewed from a nation-wide rather than piece-meal perspective and the resultant standards have to be consistently applied for the result to make a sensible difference.

The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, CCPE, recommended that the selection criteria for immigration of skilled workers be linked to an assessment of the Canadian equivalency of the applicant's education and a requirement to seek an assessment from an appropriate Canadian regulatory body rather than from one of the network of provincial credential agencies.

The provincial multicultural immigration minister cited the Association of Professional Engineers and Geo Scientists of B.C. for progressiveness and innovation and said its recognition of foreign credentials was another key reason for the profession's involvement in a pilot project to help foreign trained engineers.

At the same time the minister knows the pilot project does not lower Canada's standards in assessing foreign credentials to challenge provincial licensing bodies.

The membership of the Coalition of Regulatory-Related Agencies, CORRA, has said it has no role in managing Canada's supply of professionals. Indeed, CORRA is unanimous in its condemnation of measures that exclude individuals on the basis of measures other than qualification and ability. It says ignoring occupation as a factor in selecting immigrants may unintentionally shut off the flow of information to prospective immigrants regarding Canada's standards for professional certification, licensing and practice.

CORRA recommends that the government recognize the established expertise, experience and statutory authority of existing regulatory and licensing bodies to evaluate the professional qualifications and credentials of all who seek to be admitted into Canada's professions.

CORRA maintains that it wants immigrants with professional qualifications to settle successfully in Canada. As Canada's regulatory body, it looks forward to playing an important role.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada maintains that Canada has not yet developed a government-wide approach to international education. It says no clear government champion has yet emerged to move the issue forward. That is a very important point.

In the United States the Clinton administration issued a memorandum in support of an international educational strategy to attract more international students by addressing barriers to entry such as visa policies, procedures and regulations. Clearly our government should ensure that Canada is not left behind and does not suffer from advances made by the U.S. in this regard.

The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, commonly called CCPE, is looking for ways to streamline existing provincial and national credential assessment processes for foreign applicants.

In conclusion, the increasing mobility of the labour force and the need to make educational qualifications portable across provincial and international borders are factors contributing to a widespread concern about the procedures for assessing educational and occupational credentials.

We agree that provincial governments have jurisdiction over education. Post-secondary institutions are autonomous with respect to admissions criteria. Provinces also establish the regulations of some professional trades. Provincial institutions have the power to determine licensing and certification requirements, grant recognition of credentials, and set standards and qualifications.

Certain national associations have certification requirements as well. However the point is that these bodies follow separate procedures for assessing credentials in separate provinces. In Canada there is no central or national agency responsible for credential assessment. The portability and recognition of skills and credentials are issues being addressed on a global basis. The governments of European states are already introducing mechanisms to make it easier for professionals to move from one country to another.

The Canadian government should take this work seriously and assume leadership in this important area. It should keep up with the rest of the world so that we are not left behind.

This starting point includes the input of all concerned. It asks the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, as my motion states, to perform a feasibility study on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in Canada that may also be applied to foreign academic credentials.

I urge all hon. members of the House to kindly look at the importance of the issue and to support the motion for the sake of this great country and its people. This is not a partisan issue.