Gurmant Grewal

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Group No. 3 concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

Group No. 3 includes two motions, Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 9. Motion No. 8 is simply a housekeeping motion. The motion was moved by the Minister of Natural Resources to change his own bill. We have seen in the House that many bills tabled by the government are poorly worded, poorly drafted and very sloppy. Many times they are not clear, concise, comprehensive or transparent. Many times what we see is one or two ideas and then a huge paper load of regulations following the bill.

I am glad the hon. minister has recognized that his bill is sloppy. He had to amend it six times. This amendment just deals with translation and is of a housekeeping nature, so we will support it.

We would ask ministers when they table bills in the House to look at them carefully. Bills should be properly drafted with contents where there is some vision of the government's direction on the issues. We do not want the government to govern the country through the back door, through the regulations. Let it govern by the bills which are debated in the House. The regulations are not debated in the House, so I call them governance through the back door.

Motion No. 9 also deals with the auditor general's staff. This is a new clause moved by my hon. colleague from Athabasca, who is the Canadian Alliance chief critic for natural resources.

According to the hon. member's motion, we are adding two clauses. They are:

The accounts and financial transactions of the Foundation shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada at such time as the Auditor General considers appropriate, and a report of the audit shall be laid before Parliament.

It is a beautiful addition. The second clause is:

The Auditor General of Canada has, in connection with any audit made under subsection (1), all the powers that the Auditor General has under the Auditor General Act in connection with the examination of the accounts of Canada.

They are very attractive amendments. I will give a little background on the necessity of these amendments moved by the hon. member for Athabasca.

While the foundation provides an annual report each year to parliament, the foundation appoints its own auditor and has final approval of its reports before they are made public. While the legislation sets out rules as to who is eligible to be auditor, the government refuses to allow the Auditor General of Canada access to the foundation's books. That is not acceptable.

It is no wonder the government does not want the Office of the Auditor General of Canada involved. We have seen many scathing reports, one after another, criticizing the government very badly. The Liberals have had a difficult ride from the outgoing auditor general. His recent report was probably his most scathing indictment yet of the government. Each auditor general's report on the mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the previous one.

The official opposition wants these issues, the questions of who will audit the foundation and how appointments will be made to it, to be dealt with.

We are talking about an initial contribution of $100 million. Let us look at the multiplier effect when the private sector is involved. We are talking about a significant contribution of taxpayer money. We will not allow those two concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. That is why we have moved the two amendments.

The bill, as I said, is well intended. We would support the bill if this amendment were accepted by the government. However the current bill seems deliberately vague, perhaps to allow patronage, nepotism and misspending of taxpayer dollars to creep into the cracks.

By bringing in the Auditor General of Canada to examine the foundation's books, taxpayers would have greater protection against unchecked Liberal spending. I would therefore be very pleased to support Motion No. 9 because it attempts to restore accountability and transparency to the whole fund. It would protect the interests of Canadians and not just friends of the Liberals.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the time to move on. The people of Surrey Central are pleased to have me participate in the report stage debate on Motions Nos. 3 and 4 in Group No. 2 concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

The government has earmarked $100 million as the amount of initial funding to be doled out. The sustainable development technology foundation is to operate at arm's length from the government, or at least it is supposed to be.

We on this side of the House want to support Bill C-4. However we want to see some more amendments in the bill. We had suggestions for the Liberals concerning the bill. Our suggestions do not have anything to do with the sustainable development aspects of the bill. The amendments needed do not have anything to do with the projects related to greenhouse gas reductions and improving air quality.

Our amendments have to do with Liberal Party arrogance. The Liberals are proposing to turn the sustainable development foundation into a Liberal patronage pork barrel. That is what we are up against. The Liberals are trying to make it so that the chairperson along with a minority number of directors and members are appointed by governor in council, which then appoints the remaining members to complete the 15 person board of directors.

Let me read for the Liberals a simple paragraph from the Canadian Alliance policy which is dictated by grassroots members. It states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, and independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

When will the government stop implementing its system of disenfranchisement? The patronage practices of the government are virtually fascist by strict political definition.

How could there be this foundation at arm's length from the government while the weak Liberal government appoints its board directly and indirectly? The Canadian Alliance will put a stop to this sort of thing when we form the government.

There are two motions in Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I will not read the motions, but we would like to support them because both of them aim to limit the terms of appointment of the chairperson and the board of directors appointed by the governor in council and the staggering of appointments to ensure continuity on the board. The amendments may not accomplish exactly what the official opposition wants the government to do, but it is a step in the right direction.

The amendments moved by the hon. member for South Shore will tighten the bill and limit the number of terms of the board of directors. It is a step in the right direction. On behalf of my constituents and my colleagues I will be willing to support the two motions.

[Points Of Order, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said but she also uttered the same comments when I was asking a question. It was after three other questions were asked in between.

I am offended too. I believe the Chamber should respect all religions equally. I am not a Christian. I am a non-Christian. I am a Sikh. I expect the hon. minister to address the issue with respect to when she spoke during my question.

[Points Of Order, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during question period when I was asking a question of the Prime Minister regarding the racial slurs uttered by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, the Minister of Canadian Heritage very clearly and loudly said “What would you know about Christians?”

First we are dealing with racial slurs and now we are dealing with religious slurs. I believe all members in the House should treat all religions equally and respectfully. I am offended by the minister's comments, and I would ask her to withdraw her comments and apologize to the House.

[Multiculturalism, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not holding his minister accountable under the hate laws. His government vows to combat exactly these kinds of slurs. That is what the hate laws are for.

The only apology acceptable is for the minister to resign. Will she resign today?

[Multiculturalism, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that anyone who communicates statements in a public place inciting hatred against any identifiable group where it is likely to breach the peace is guilty, including cabinet ministers.

Since it appears that the junior multiculturalism minister has broken this law by inciting hatred against the people of Prince George and Kamloops, how can the Prime Minister continue to insist that she not step down?

[The Acadians, March 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on private member's Motion No. 241 which reads:

That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will intercede with Her Majesty 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.

I appreciate the sentiment, the emotion and the sense of personal justice at the heart of the motion. For the benefit Canadians watching the debate, I will sketch some of the details that have given cause for the motion.

Acadia was explored initially by the Italians who named the region Arcadia in 1524. A treaty passed the area back to the French in 1697. Beginning in the 1670s French colonists left the major settlement at Port Royal to found other centres.

After the war of the Spanish succession of 1701 to 1713, Acadia came under English rule. From 1713 to 1744 the relatively small English presence permitted the Acadian population to grow at a pace that surpassed the average of the whole region. This period was referred to as Acadia's golden age.

England demanded from its conquered subjects an oath of unconditional loyalty, but the Acadians agreed only to a position of neutrality. This was accepted at that time. England began bringing its own settlers into the area around 1749. The British in Halifax decided to settle the Acadian question once and for all. By refusing to pledge an unconditional oath of allegiance, the Acadian population risked deportation.

The Acadians initially refused to make the pledge, then acquiesced. Lawrence, the English gentleman in charge of the settlement, was unhappy with a reluctant oath and executed the plan for deportation. Why deportation? Lawrence feared a combined attack by Louisbourg and Canada against Nova Scotia joined by the Mi'kmaq and the Acadians.

According to historical record, the deportation process lasted from 1755 to 1762. The Acadians were put onto ships and deported to English colonies as far south as Georgia. Others managed to flee to French lands to hide in the woods. It is believed that three-quarters of the Acadian population was deported.

There was no distinction whatsoever made between the innocent and the guilty. The tyrannical decision to deport was carried out under circumstances of the harshest cruelties. More than 7,000 third and fourth generation persons were transported from their homes and dispersed among the colonies bordering on the Atlantic, from Massachusetts to Georgia. Their lands and possessions were forfeited to the crown without compensation. What is to be done now? The motion demands an apology.

Let us review a recent apology made by the Canadian government. Let us consider an exchange between Brian Mulroney and the late Pierre Trudeau concerning the apology to Japanese Canadians for their internment during the second world war. Mr. Trudeau said, as per the June 29, 1984 Hansard :

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.

He further stated:

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.

He went on to say:

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. They were not Japanese Canadians. They were Canadians of Italian or German origin, or some old French Canadians who went to jail, who went to concentration camps during the Second World War. Why do we not apologize to them?

He further said:

I do not think it is the purpose of the 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.

On December 14, 1994, the Liberal's position on redresses was articulated by the then secretary of state of multiculturalism and status of women, and not the one who is not apologizing for our gaff. At that time it was Sheila Finestone. She said:

Seeking to halt the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments, 6 ethno cultural communities have requested redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.

By the way there are now eight ethnocultural communities. She continued:

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come. Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring.

I believe this latter quote is most significant because this is what the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois is up against in trying to have the government support his motion.

I seriously doubt that he will be successful. The apology and compensation package given to the Japanese Canadians has sent a precedent from which Italians and Ukrainians interned in World War I and World War II have also demanded apologies.

The Ukrainian group, according to the recommendations issued by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has requested principally that Ottawa fund educational programs and provide for historical plaques, not direct compensation to victims.

The Italians were not happy with Mulroney's expression of regret issued November 4, 1990 and are seeking a full apology and compensation. Both these groups cite the apology given to Japanese Canadians as the reason they are deserving.

Let me also remind the House of another situation. One of the political parties in the House was in power in 1914, when 376 passengers who were British subjects arrived on a ship named Komagata Maru . They were not allowed to land on Canadian soil because of an exclusionist immigration policy based on race and the 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 on 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. The rest were Hindus and Muslims, but they were all from Punjab.

Sikh soldiers who had served throughout the British empire thought they should be able to work wherever the British flag was flying. The passengers went without food and water on several occasions for more than 24 hours and the immigration officials held them incommunicado. Even the lawyers hired on their behalf were not allowed to see them.

The Punjabi residents of Vancouver raised money to pay for the charter. After two months of detention in the Vancouver harbour, the government brought in the cruiser the Rainbow and aimed its guns at the Komagata Maru . The ship was escorted 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 4th did not end until September 29th in Calcutta, India, where the police opened fire on passengers and killed 19 of them. Others 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. Will the government offer an official apology?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this issue.

He talked about the provinces. The Canadian Alliance strongly believes that there should be a co-operative approach in dealing with the provinces, not the confrontational approach which his party is practising at this time.

The Liberal government has an absolutely confrontational approach with the provinces. That is why many issues are not being resolved, particularly the trade barriers which continue. That is why the confederation is not working. It could work better if the provinces and the federal government shared responsibilities and if they had dialogue and co-operation on various issues.

Regarding high taxes, he alleges that the highest tax cuts in Canadian history have recently taken place. That is nonsense. It is not true. The highest tax hike since the Liberals took power in 1993, was in the CPP. I remember it was the first bill we debated in the House. It implemented a 73% tax increase. That was the largest tax increase in Canadian history and it took place under this regime.

The member spoke about lost jobs. When the Canadian dollar is strong we do not lose jobs. It helps to restore credibility and trust in our economy. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would go over these issues in detail. I probably answered his questions contrary to his opinion.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. In the second summit, the main theme was education. It would be very healthy to promote other social services agendas as well, for example, health care or other services that are offered to the 800 million people in this trade bloc. It would be a very good idea.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am very pleased to participate in the take note debate on the upcoming summit of the Americas on this early morning. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

For the benefit of those caring and dedicated Canadians who are still watching this debate on TV, on April 21 and 22 Canada will host 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas in Quebec City, 21 being new leaders. Cuba is the only country not participating in the summit. The FTAA would cover over 800 million people. The Americas have a combined GDP of over $11 trillion American.

This will be the third summit of the Americas. The first summit highlighted trade and was held in Miami in 1994. The second highlighted education and was held in Santiago, Chile in 1998. This third summit will discuss the proposal to phase out trade barriers from the Arctic to Argentina by 2005. The plan of action for the summit includes 18 different fields, including drug trafficking and money laundering.

Let me give some background facts on the free trade area of the Americas, commonly called the FTAA.

There is a political and economic transformation taking place in this trading bloc. Today there are no military dictatorships, while in 1995 there were 14. In 1950 Canada and Argentina held similar developmental levels but there is a disparity today. Canada has invested $12 billion in Chile, three times more than we have in Japan. Canada invested $42 billion in the Americas outside the U.S.A. Over 90% of goods from Latin and Central America and the Caribbean come to Canada duty free these days. Canada exports about 45% of our GDP.

I will go over the enormous benefits of free trade. It will broaden our trading rights. It is mutually beneficial to participating countries. It gives consumers better choice of goods and services, and at a cheaper price too, as compared to tariff protected economies. It helps us get value added products. It brings about prosperity, development, job creation and economic developments. It enhances freedom of enterprise, democracy and good governance as well as the voluntary exchange of goods, services and money. It protects intellectual property rights.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA gives protection to Canadian investors.

The Canadian Alliance supports free trade and, in principle, we support FTAA initiatives. The liberal Prime Minister of the U.K., Tony Blair, emphasized in this House the importance of free trade. I will politely remind our NDP colleagues of that.

We must also remember that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that fought hard against free trade between Canada and the U.S. The Liberals lost the 1988 election based on that policy plank. The Right Hon. John Turner led the members opposite to a crushing defeat because he opposed expanding trade with our largest trading partner. At that time the Liberals said that Canada would cease to exist as a country and we would lose our sovereignty if the FTA was passed. Canadians did not fall for that.

The Liberals have made a 180 degree turn. We all know what we call that in politics. Today we are wary of the Liberal government's trade policy. We have seen failed team Canada missions. In the majority of them, our exports to those countries dropped significantly and our trade declined after the team Canada visit. That is a matter of record. The facts and figures speak for themselves.

There are some people who say that Canada should be investigating this kind of summit with western Europe. East-west trade may also be beneficial to Canada in the future.

It is also notable that trade barriers within Canada remain in place. There are more barriers to trade between British Columbia and New Brunswick or other provinces than there are between B.C. and Washington state. That issue is not on the thin soup agenda of the House because the Liberals are not serious about it. There has never been a serious dialogue for federal and provincial co-operation. The government has always had a confrontational approach with the provinces.

Canadians have a number of questions to which the government has failed to provide clear answers. What exactly would be Canada's role in the FTAA? How exactly does Canada benefit from the summit? I am afraid Canada will go to the summit with poorly done homework and with its usual weak position. It is difficult to debate the issue because so little has been made public by the government. What criteria should the government be using to promote trade relations in the FTAA? Will the Liberal government expand its aid for trade policy? That scenario plays out with the Liberal government using Canada's foreign aid like a carrot and then invoking trade policies with a stick on underdeveloped and disadvantaged nations.

Will the Liberals measure the benefits of the FTAA against the cost of dealing with countries that do not follow good governance practices? Will the government hold those nations accountable for their human rights records? What about democratic values and how will they be defined? What about trade sanctions? The government is all over the map when it comes to applying trade sanctions against rogue states.

We could say that there is a double standard, but it may be a triple standard or even worse. There is no method to the madness that the government uses when deciding about trade sanctions.

The government does not listen to Canadians. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended separating into two categories the sanctions we have against Iraq. The committee recommended that military and humanitarian sanctions be separated and that humanitarian sanctions be discontinued. What has happened since that unanimous 1999 committee report? Absolutely nothing has been done.

The weak, arrogant Liberal government negotiated the MAI in secrecy for over a year before Canadians found out. If the Liberal government had been listening to Canadians, there would have been no need for the people's summit that is running parallel to the Quebec summit.

What about Canada's disputes with other nations when it comes to agriculture, softwood lumber or fisheries? Are any of these issues in the briefcase that our government is bringing to the summit? Canadians do not know because the Liberals are not telling us.

What are the Liberals doing about the low Canadian dollar and high taxes? These issues are barriers to Canada's abilities to negotiate free trade agreements and attract investors. The Liberals have to drag our low value dollar with them around the world, which does not help us in negotiations with other nations. Are trade subsidies on the table? Is our dispute with Brazil on the table?

Most notably, Canadians are wondering about international crime and organized crime. Will we be expanding our trade with nations that are affecting our country as a result of the drug trade, human smuggling, money laundering or bank and computer fraud?

We must also carefully assess whether all countries participating in the summit are abiding by existing international trade agreements. Unfortunately, parliament has had no role in helping to set the parameters of Canada's negotiation position in the talks.

In conclusion, we in our party believe that it is essential to allow parliamentarians in on the process, including a full debate and a free vote on any agreement. We believe it is important to foster a healthy economic environment for the benefit of consumers by pursuing free and open trade at home and abroad. We support securing access to international markets through the negotiation of trade agreements, but we must proceed carefully.