Gurmant Grewal

[Cida, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is another department that bungled nearly a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. According to its own audit, CIDA had “no specific targets defined, little data collected, little evidence of analysis of progress reports”. It bungled almost a billion dollars in the same way the human resources department did.

How many more billion dollar bungles does the Prime Minister think taxpayers will tolerate?

[Government Grants, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged by the reckless spending at HRDC in the billion dollar boondoggle. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. This is a systemic problem which is widespread in Indian affairs, western economic diversification, ACOA and CIDA. Let us look at CIDA.

CIDA Inc.'s December 1999 audit revealed missing reports, sloppy bookkeeping, no follow-up audits, no lessons learned and payments made to projects even after they failed. It is the same old thing.

The situation has worsened since the 1992 audit. More than half of nearly $1 billion goes to feasibility studies and still only one in ten projects ever gets off the ground. There is no measurement of benefits from projects. Ninety per cent of the projects did not even report where the money went.

Some of the biggest CIDA contracts have gone to a company which was among the largest single contributor to the Liberal Party prior to the last election. CIDA is being used as a slush fund in the same way as HRDC.

[Committees Of The House, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations be concurred in.

This is the organizational report of the committee and its content is the same as it has been at the beginning of every session in this and the previous parliament, so the motion may be deemed adopted.

[Naming Of Member, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you 100%. In a civilized world we do not have to use words like lying. I would like clarification from you, Mr. Speaker. Is lying allowed in the House?

[Human Resources Development, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote Michael Scharff, executive vice-president of RMH Teleservices in response to questions about why his company got $1.6 million in grants. Listen to this: “I am sure we would be in Brantford one way or another. That was kind of the icing on the cake”.

Why do profitable companies get the icing while the taxpayers pay the bill?

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to third reading and report stage of Bill C-2, the government's proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act.

I spoke in debate at second reading of the bill before the Christmas break. At that time I said that my constituents and I were not supporting the bill.

Bill C-2 is a very important bill for our democracy. The foundation of a strong democracy calls for our elections to be democratic, free and fair, offering an equal opportunity to all Canadians and all parties. This bill continues to maintain the most objectionable provisions of the elections act which benefit the ruling party, in this case the Liberal Party.

Canadians have asked for changes to the way we elect our federal government representatives. With this bill we see clearly that the Liberals have once again failed to respond to the wishes of Canadians. What a great way to start the new millennium, along with the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle.

The government has wasted an opportunity to modernize and democratize the elections act. The amendments we are debating today will not be adopted by the government. Specifically, they have failed to deliver changes to a number of things; for example, patronage appointments, party registration requirements, campaign financing, third party spending issues, the reimbursement of election expenses, voter identification and the timing of elections and byelections.

Let us talk about third party spending limits. Even though the hon. member for North Vancouver has done a marvellous job in analyzing the elections bill, which is so important for Canadians, let me go over it very quickly.

The bill seeks to limit third party spending to $150,000 during a federal general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be spent in any particular riding. We on this side of the House believe that it is not the place of government to limit the right of individual Canadians, or a group of Canadians, to spend their own money in support of a cause or a candidate in a federal election.

In B.C. we call this kind of manipulation a gag law. It is an effort by government to prevent other, smaller political voices from engaging heavily in an election campaign. The government is ignoring recommendations made to modernize our elections act. In B.C. the government tried to do this recently. It tried to restrict third party advertising to $5,000. It knows it will not form the next B.C. government so it is trying everything it can to prepare to win the next election. It is toying with our B.C. election rules, and that is what the Liberals are going to do in Ottawa.

But the Liberals in Ottawa are even more cruel than the bankrupt, some would say corrupt, NDP government of B.C. The Liberals only want to allow $3,000 to be spent in any riding in Canada by a fledgling third party. That amount of money would not pay for a single advertisement on television. What a sham.

What all of this shows is that the Liberals are desperately afraid of losing the next election. Can we imagine being so afraid of our opponents that we try to tie their hands?

The B.C. supreme court ruled the limits to third party spending invalid. The Liberals are challenging the hallmarks of our democracy. For example, the ruling party, the Liberal Party, has free broadcasting time based on its number of members of parliament far and beyond what any other party is allowed. Have the Liberals changed that situation with this bill? No.

Far from levelling the playing field, they are forcing a spending limit to be put in place of $3,000 per riding. This would give a huge advantage to the Liberals by restricting the ability of any other person or group to counter government propaganda during an election. Have the Liberals changed that situation with this bill? No.

MPs from B.C. know what desperate governments do to legislation affecting elections. We wanted to see the Liberals adopt amendments to this bill. They refused to do so during the committee stage. Now we give them the opportunity. This is the opportunity to adopt amendments at this stage. We are holding the flashlight for them, but they are closing their eyes. They are not looking when we show them the light through the darkness. That does not mean they will do the right thing.

The Liberals are passing legislation that will immediately be struck down by the courts. This is a waste of taxpayer money.

The Liberals have witnessed the B.C. NDP government's third party election limits legislation struck down by the court, but they will go ahead and pass the same legislation. The B.C. supreme court found that there is no evidence to suggest that big money alone wins elections. It said there was no evidence that third party spending affects the election process.

Everyone knows during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord that the yes side lost, even though it spent at least 10 times as much as was spent by the no side.

During the 1993 election the PC Party spent significantly more than any other party, yet had only two members elected to the House.

Why will the government not adopt the amendments?

For example, with respect to the requirements for registered party status, the elections act requires a political party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain on the ballot. The courts in Ontario say that only two candidates are needed to form a party. It is the voters, not the government, who should decide whether a party and a candidate are worthy of their vote.

This is an attempt by the government to hinder the formation and growth of new parties like the Reform Party or the Canadian alliance. The government is actually trying to limit competition on the ballot. This is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic. It is almost a dictatorship. The government should be ashamed.

There are many other things which we could talk about. For example, we put forward an amendment concerning voter identification. A voter can now be asked to swear an oath to confirm identity. That is ridiculous. We need to use photo ID. If someone is evil enough to try to commit fraud in an election, surely we can assume that the same person would have no problem swearing an oath and lying to God or himself.

Another amendment concerns electronic voting. Electronic voting could significantly cut the cost of running elections. In Ontario electronic council elections can be run for one-sixth of the normal cost.

Let us talk about reimbursement of a party's election expenses. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities designed to persuade the taxpayers themselves how to vote. There should not be any reimbursement at all.

The candidate deposit of $1,000 should be much lower in the interests of encouraging Canadians to participate, regardless of their personal financial position.

There are many other areas where the bill can be criticized as being undemocratic, including fixed dates for federal elections, timing of byelections, government advertising or propaganda before an election, and many others. Time prevents me from commenting on these matters. My constituents know all about the bill. We were fighting to have changes made to our elections act when dealing with this bill, which was Bill C-83 in the first session of this parliament, but the changes have not been made. The bill is a manipulation by the power hungry government in power.

It is shameful. When we send our representatives abroad to monitor elections we preach democracy. We go to other countries to monitor their elections to ensure that they are democratic, fair and free. But what is happening right here in our own country? This gag law, this elections act which the government is forcing through the House, will create a situation where we will have undemocratic elections. There will not be free and fair elections in this country.

It is really pathetic. It is so undemocratic that it is almost undemocratic enough to be a dictatorship. Canadians will not support a political party that will force these types of changes on our democratic process.

[Privacy Act, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt but I want to point out something for the record before we start debate on the motion. In his comments the PC member misrepresented the facts, so I want to—

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the debate and I did not want to raise this issue because usually we are on point but the member has just misquoted and misrepresented me.

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to Motion No. 71 presented by the hon. member from the Tory party. The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Industry to review the policies in place which affect the Canadian shipbuilding industry in order to assess their ability to provide a competitive and equitable environment for the growth of the industry in Canada.

This is a noble cause. Canadians want to sympathize with the hon. member who laments the days when Canada was one of the great shipbuilding nations.

Lower taxes would help all factors of our economy. If the government would lower taxes it would help our industries. Lower taxes would help all companies across the country.

The official opposition policy calls for private sector self-reliance without the federal government providing tax dollars to support any specific sector.

Let us look at the shipbuilding industry in Canada. With only .04%, that is 1/25th of a percentage point of the world's shipbuilding production, Canada cannot sustain a shipbuilding industry. Rather than try to match these subsidies and other incentives offered by other countries, we should concentrate our efforts on negotiating down unfair export subsidies.

Far from guaranteeing loans to Canadians who purchase Canadian built ships, we should drop the 25% tariff we have on non-NAFTA ship imports so that all Canadian shipowners and ship purchasers are not penalized.

Industry Canada can tell us about the problems in the shipbuilding industry. It is a declining industry, a dead in the water industry. There is an overcapacity in the world of over 40%. Canada is not even in the ballpark.

What the Liberals and Tories have done to the shipbuilding industry in Canada is a study on what not to do in terms of productivity. Yet the industry department continues to have a shipbuilding policy which has technology partnership grants, research and development grants and the Export Development Corporation supporting it. Why?

The technology partnerships program is available to firms for research and development, if they so wish. It is repayable based on success. It is a risk sharing, reward sharing program. No one should use this program for shipbuilding because there would be no way to pay back the loan.

Let us look at the world shipbuilding industry. This industry has moved away from North American and European markets to southeast Asian markets. Japan and South Korea continue to control over two-thirds of the total international market for shipbuilding and ship repair. China is emerging as a rival. When combined, these three countries control over 75% of the world market.

Due to extreme pressure from Asian shipbuilders many traditional shipbuilders, including the Norwegian company Kvaerner, have chosen to get out of the industry altogether.

Canada cannot build major ships. We can manufacture only minor and smaller vessels here. Both of these markets are already operating at over 40% of their capacity. Demand and prices are already weak and are forecast to continue to decline. Prices for 1999 are down by 6% to 24% from last year.

The international market is experiencing a significant downsizing. Market conditions for shipbuilders are not about to change. The total employment in Canada's shipbuilding and ship repair industry as of May 1999 was about 5,000.

What should be done? We should not turn to taxpayers and make them pay for a shipbuilding industry in Canada that will never be a viable industry. On this side of the House we support de-politicizing economic decision making by eliminating grants, guarantees and subsidies.

What did the Tories do about the shipbuilding industry when they were in power for nine years? The destruction of the shipbuilding industry during their time in government was devastating to our eastern provinces and to B.C.

Let us look at subsidies as a solution. The Tories think, as the Liberals do, that all we have to do is get the industry committee to approve millions of dollars worth of subsidies and we can resurrect Canada's shipbuilding industry. That is typical. The Liberals use the industry committee and its minister to try to give millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds to hockey teams. This is all very disgusting to those of us who are building an alternative to the traditional way of doing things here in Ottawa.

In the last session the House debated shipbuilding. A Bloc MP wanted to establish a federal loan granting program that would cover up to 87.5% of the money borrowed to purchase a commercial ship built in Canadian shipyards. That bill would also have provided a favourable and generous tax treatment of lease financing for the purchase of Canadian built ships. The Bloc MP's bill proposed a refundable tax credit for refitting commercial ships in Canada. This was not just another attempt to do some Liberal bashing over this issue; maybe the Bloc Quebecois also wants Canadian taxpayers to continue pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into Quebec up to the last minute, until they leave Canada, but it is very clear that the people of Quebec will not be following the Bloc Quebecois anywhere.

Let us look at the industry committee. In November of last year the industry committee dealt with the shipbuilding matter. The committee heard the sad details of the worldwide industry, which spelled poor prospects in the industry for our country in the future.

The Liberals on the committee did not know or were not willing to admit that their minister for the homeless was secretly lobbying cabinet, trying to broker a common ground between industry and the government. Canadians think that she is in Toronto working on the homeless problem. We know that she is not in B.C. helping Vancouver with its homeless people. The media caught her working on shipbuilding. The Liberals only want to meet to talk about helping the shipbuilding industry. This garners votes in eastern Canada and Quebec, and they hope in B.C.

The government could be wrong, but it does not want to have to face Canadian taxpayers and our foreign trading partners with the facts and figures on actually how much money it would pour into the industry. That is a big question.

This is the same government that cannot account for $1 billion in HRDC spending, which we were debating earlier today. The concentration on this issue could be construed as a thinly veiled attempt to orchestrate the immediate building of five or six ships which the federal government plans to construct in four or five years. We are watching for an attempt to have these ships built this year or next. This may save the taxpayers money or it may not. Maybe the ships could be built cheaper offshore. That would save taxpayers some money. Let us look at a viable solution. Maybe the Liberals will have these ships constructed just before the next federal election so they can throw the industry a bone. No one will be fooled.

I will support the review of the shipbuilding policy. However, I will support it reluctantly.

The questions are: How many times do we have to review this matter? How much money is it going to cost taxpayers? Canadians know that the current Liberal government is maintaining a high, artificial level of taxation. It is hurting our economy, our productivity and our growth with high taxes, as the member from the PC party mentioned. It is hurting our consumers and it is discouraging foreign investors from coming to Canada. It has caused a brain drain that threatens our country.

Something has to be done about the high level of taxes that is killing jobs, our economy, our industry and the country. Our employment levels are too low. With our vast resources and our ability to create wealth with other nations in the global economy—

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a tremendous amount of interest on the part of all members in asking questions of the minister. I seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for questions by five minutes.