Gurmant Grewal

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my speech was effective enough to at least wake all of them up. The member spoke about the deficit. I ask the member, and all members on the other side of the House, why they did not balance the budget 29 years ago. Why is the deficit continuing?

They balanced the budget on the backs of taxpayers. The budget could have been balanced 29 years ago if the government increased taxes then. The budget should be balanced by eliminating waste and duplication, by reducing spending in government and by giving a tax break to Canadians.

Canada is the number one country in the G-7 for paying the highest amount of personal income taxes. That is shameful. That is a lack of vision.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to hear from the hon. member because that is the only thing mentioned in the throne speech about agriculture. I challenge the member to show me anything else.

Is there any solution to the crisis or the problem? The Liberal government, while it is figuring out if there is a crisis at all, does not know how farmers are suffering.

Speaking of foreign affairs, I ask the hon. member or any other member on the Liberal side to tell me the page in the throne speech where it talks about foreign affairs or international trade. I look forward to an answer from the hon. member.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the thoughtful comments of the hon. member and I thank him for the excellent question. That is the question about the throne speech all of us are asking on the opposition benches.

The answer to that question is simple. How can the government ignore such important areas like agriculture, child pornography, defence, airline mergers and illegal immigrants coming to this country? All these areas are missing from the throne speech, even the broad base tax cuts which Canadians have been demanding for a long time. All these areas are missing just because of one reason. The government's arrogance shows that it lacks vision. The Liberals have absolutely no vision about the 21st century and where Canadians should be heading so confidently to look for prosperity and opportunities for all. Basically the government is lacking vision.

In one of his speeches the Prime Minister even admitted that. He said that Canada was doing very good without vision. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had vision? The Prime Minister has absolutely no vision and he confessed that. The Liberal government is giving evidence day after day that it really has no vision.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we were looking for a useful throne speech that the Liberals took so long to write. Instead of high hopes what we got was a hopeless, empty shell of a speech. There is a lack of vision for the 21st century by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister confessed that.

If I had written that speech, I would have given a vision to build a strong and wide bridge for all Canadians to cross to the next millennium to find peace, hope, prosperity and opportunities for all.

With the fast changes that have been taking place in the global village in the past decade, the foreign policy of a nation becomes increasingly important. Foreign affairs was not mentioned in the throne speech. There was not a single word about it. A nation's policies on trade, the economy, fiscal health, investment, defence, security, immigration, human resources, natural resources and other issues depend on good sound foreign policy, but there was not a single word about it in the throne speech. There was no mention at all.

Traditionally we have had a niche in the world arena. In the world, Canada has little military interest, no weapons sales interest. We have no hidden agenda. We have no threatening trade interests. But the current Liberal government is eroding our reputation as a potential world leader having integrity and fairness. The Liberal government's lack of a plan and its track record since 1993 show Canadians a weak spirit and a weak political will to make any leaps and bounds at the international level.

The Prime Minister has missed many opportunities for our country. His missing King Hussein's funeral is typical of what he has done to our international reputation. He did not allow B.C.'s emergency response team to go to Taiwan after the devastating earthquake there. The Prime Minister also disappointed the people of Turkey in terms of helping them with the first of the two earthquakes. He responded very late to the crisis in East Timor. His policies were on the wrong track when India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests. The government was on the verge of declaring a trade war with our largest trading partner earlier this year.

There are numerous examples. The decisions concerning Iraq and Kosovo were done deals before they came to the floor of parliament. It was meaningless to have take note debates without a vote. It did not provide an opportunity for the government to listen to anyone in the House or to parliament.

The foreign policy of the government has many faults. There is not a word about foreign policy in the throne speech. Over a century ago Sir John A. Macdonald hoped that Canada would be a source of strength, not weakness. Our bilateral and multilateral foreign policy requires the integration of diplomatic, military and economic dimensions of policy into a coherent framework grounded in sound principles and oriented toward promoting long term security and prosperity for Canada and Canadians.

Therefore the official opposition and the Reform Party, as the government in waiting, released its interim foreign policy paper this week, Canada in the New Millennium: A New Look at Foreign Policy . It is a sincere effort by the official opposition to present a thoughtful, strategic new foreign policy approach consistent with Canada's national interest.

It is a program of action that will permit coherence, encourage consistency and retain moral purpose. It seeks to restore our country's international credibility, shamefully squandered over the past 30 years by Liberal and Tory governments. It is designed to advance our security and prosperity, and it allows our country to adapt to the ever changing dynamics of world affairs.

Canada's influence in the world has steadily declined. In the last several years a small elite group has formulated our foreign policy. Many of its assumptions stem from a 30 year old foreign policy that needs to be rethought. The Liberals, beginning with Mr. Trudeau, have ignored, for example, the importance of NATO.

Canada belongs to some 100 international organizations, some of which do not even exist. There may not be any analysis done on cost benefits or value for tax dollars. Our friends and foes wonder what are our national goals. Canada is becoming the laughing stock of the international community.

The current government uses catch phrases like soft power and human security but has never explained what they mean. In fact it has endangered our long term economic and political interests.

The government's foreign policy is not enhancing our security and prosperity. This government and the Tories before it eroded Canada's military capability to the point that they have caused our international influence to decline. Except for its initiatives to ban land mines, the government has failed to address drug and small weapon smuggling, organized crime, illegal immigrants, gangs, money laundering and industrial espionage, to name only a few areas.

There are infamous reports of corruption and wrongdoing in our foreign embassies. The government does only three things: first, it punishes whistleblowers; second, it covers up the wrongdoing; and third, it does nothing. The government has practically done nothing to address this serious issue. Based on a constituent's concern I discovered some wrongdoing, took action and attempted to fix the problem. Our image is being tarnished and our abilities at the international level have been curtailed as these situations go unaddressed.

We have foreign missions where people are lining up and waiting for many hours. They have no washrooms, drinking water or covered facilities. Next door to these places are the embassies and high commissions from other countries that provide those basic facilities, not to mention air conditioning.

Our foreign policy has been hostile to certain nations and discriminatory toward others. The immigration head tax is a good example of that, and so is the inconsistency of the government's handing out foreign aid in billions of dollars.

The Liberals continue to maintain and promise that they will provide 0.7% of the GNP to foreign aid, but actually they have been able to give only one-third of that. The question is not one of more or less but one of fair commitment. They deliver a message of false hope to the poor and starving people and the governments of the world.

The government delivers billions of dollars of our foreign aid unaudited, without transparency, without parliamentary review and without compatibility with our national interest. It ensures that it is unaccountable by refusing to establish the aid effectiveness measurement asked for by the management of CIDA. Other than for humanitarian reasons, our foreign aid should be attached to good governance and an acceptable human rights record.

The Liberals do not target our support to credible organizations, nations or even regions that are important to the Canadian interest. There is no mention of these considerations in the throne speech. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of foreign affairs or international trade in a speech which announces the work that the Liberals plan to do before the next election.

I know my time is limited, but I want to talk about peacemaking versus peacekeeping. I want to talk about Candu reactor trade barriers and I want to talk about plutonium, nuclear wastes and many other issues.

In conclusion, I encourage all members of the House and all Canadians to read our interim foreign policy statement on Canada and the millennium and ask the Liberals across the way to open their eyes. They should not sleep at the wheel. They should either do the job properly or get out of the way.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. He talked about Canada's vast resources and the fact that Canada is a vast country. He also bragged about the Liberal government's policies for Canada.

We know our population is low. We know that Canada needs a larger market for our goods and services. With the fast changes that are taking place in our country and in the international arena and the fast changes that are taking place in the global village, which is globalization, one policy that is very important for a nation is the foreign policy.

There is not even one word about foreign policy in the throne speech. This is a policy that is like a thread in a necklace which keeps all the beads together. A foreign policy is the policy on which the other policies of a nation depend. I am talking about trade, the economy, the fiscal health of a country, investment, defence, security, immigration, human and natural resources and so on.

Since a good, sound, solid foreign policy is very important to a nation, I would like to ask the member why there is not even a single word about foreign policy in the throne speech.

[Justice, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, five self-proclaimed skinheads, convicted in the murder of Sikh Temple caretaker Nirmal Singh Gill, were given prison sentences of 15 to 18 years.

These prison terms were already reduced by three years and will probably be further reduced in the Liberal's soft criminal justice system. Life should mean life, but criminal penalties are routinely watered down.

Canadians want tougher penalties for violent crime. Racism has no place in our society. Our diversity is our strength and a valuable asset.

The people of Surrey have shown tolerance throughout this entire episode. We can also commend our local community leaders for keeping things calm. Our media treated this matter fairly.

Finally, we can commend the work of our RCMP despite limited resources for successfully bringing this matter to justice.

[International Circumpolar Community, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and as one of the official opposition's critics for foreign affairs to debate Motion No. 237.

The motion asks the government to recognize the 55th parallel as the Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community. The 55th parallel is accepted by the international community as the boundary that separates the circumpolar territory of the world from more southerly regions.

The NDP member of parliament may simply want to make sure that our domestic laws and policies coincide or match the boundaries that are used by the eight countries concerned with the northernmost regions of the globe, but this may not be the case.

We in the official opposition are very often alone in opposing the positions taken by others in the House on issues like Nisga'a, where the benefits are given based on race and not based on need. In the next 20 years the courts will vindicate our position on the Nisga'a bill.

While the Liberals try to figure out whether or not there is an agricultural crisis, we are going to the hardest hit communities to rally support for a long term solution. Being the foreign affairs critic I can say that apart from the other practical solutions that are possible we propose an aggressive campaign against punitive foreign agricultural subsidies. I am sure that today our farmers are wise enough to make well informed choices.

Forty per cent of our country lies in the territory north of the 60th parallel. If we lowered the mark to 55 degrees, it would be significantly more than 40%. This area would clip off the tops off the provinces. If we included the range of provincial north in addition to Arctic Quebec and Labrador, a great deal of policy concerns would come into play. This is noted in “Canada and the Circumpolar World”, a 1997 report of the foreign affairs committee.

Many federal-provincial matters will result from the lowering of the boundary that we draw to separate northern Canada from southern Canada. Imagine the interprovincial and federal-provincial squabbling and fighting that would ensue if the boundary were lowered.

Most of the policies that concern our Canadian north are federal government policies. The area between the 60th and the 55th parallels is covered by aboriginal policies under the jurisdiction of the department of Indian affairs, in particular its northern affairs branch. There are other issues. There are environmental concerns in our mid-north. Resources would be affected.

It seems that a great deal of consideration needs to be given to this motion. There may not even be a problem having our domestic circumpolar boundary being five degrees less than the boundary referred to in the country's international policy. The motion is not clear as to why the domestic boundary should be changed. The 60 degree mark is the product of the Arctic Council of eight arctic countries.

Should we be spending taxpayers' money to be a member of the Arctic Council? That is a big question. We are known to be a member of every organization that exists without evaluating whether or not it is useful or productive to be a member. It is a big question of whether we should be a member of the Arctic Council. Maybe we should study that. The government spends millions of dollars every year to keep us in good measure with the Arctic Council and a host of other international organizations.

Let us look at the Reform Party policy. We referred to the Arctic Council in our foreign policy statement which was unveiled a few moments ago. It is entitled “Canada and the Millennium: A New Look at Foreign Policy”. It is a wonderful document and I encourage every Canadian to go through it. It is analytical and has vision. It is a beautiful document. I encourage everyone to read it.

Chapter seven deals with policy in relation to international organizations. We state that the government spends our tax dollars to join organizations just for the sake of joining. The Liberals, and the Tories before them, have a reflex reaction to international problems. They have knee-jerk decision making policies. They immediately support, promote and create international organizations.

One example is the Arctic Council. In 1996 Canada was instrumental in lobbying for the creation of an Arctic Council of circumpolar states. Its precise purpose and utility remains as unclear now as it was in 1996. The council's value seems to have been largely symbolic. The Liberals have not been able to work out what that council does and why its activity would affect Canada. So many other questions remain unanswered.

The U.S. is not enthusiastic about the council either. It will not deal with matters relating to military security for example. It is open to question whether Canada should be a member of such organizations but the government spends tax dollars as if it were at a casino with bags and bags of cash to spend. This government is a spend and spend and tax and tax type of government. It is spending an enormous amount of money in this organization.

Why are we worried about the 60th parallel? While Canada certainly should seek to maintain constructive and friendly relations with all countries, our resources are finite. The Reform Party believes that we must focus our diplomatic attention first on those countries and regions where we have the most significant political, strategic and economic interests and second on those countries that are most important to Canada and Canadians.

Our most significant political partners are the countries that make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the G-8 countries. These are the countries whose diplomatic policies have the greatest impact on Canada.

In strategic terms we need to focus on those regions from which direct threats to Canada or to vital Canadian interests might arise, namely North America, the circumpolar region and Russia, the Euro-Atlantic region and the North Pacific and East Asia. In economic terms, national interest demands that we concentrate on promoting trade relations with those countries and regions that are crucial to promoting the prosperity of Canada. It is very important that we look at it in these two terms.

In this regard, 98% of Canada's trade is conducted with the United States, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific Rim. That is where our business lies. Those are the partners with whom we should do business and where we should go to great lengths to do business. That is where we should concentrate our efforts. That is where we should put our scarce resources.

In conclusion, as a result of political devolution and participatory development, global interest in the circumpolar region is expected to increase in the future. It has great potential geopolitical significance in terms of the issues of environmental change, indigenous rights, sustainable human development and development of the immense natural resources that are in the Arctic region.

Building an adequate framework for circumpolar co-operation is essential to avoid future international conflicts. This motion is only part of the bigger picture of foreign policy. We need a fundamental change in our foreign policy. We cannot afford to fix our foreign policy bit by bit. A complete renovation of our foreign policy is needed.

We have seen what the Liberal government has done with the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act. It has done it piece by piece and has screwed up the whole Immigration Act which is not serving Canadians' best interests. Similarly, there is a need for us to look at our foreign policy in the bigger picture and evaluate the important elements of foreign policy which would be beneficial to Canada and Canadians.

I encourage the NDP member and all Canadians to study the Reform Party's foreign policy proposal which was unveiled today and which is called “Canada and the Millennium: A New Look at Foreign Policy”. It is a wonderful document.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am debating the bill before the House, Bill C-4. It is an important bill because we are signing a treaty dealing with the international space station. We want to make sure that we put forward our commitments and meet them.

We had absolutely no input on the treaty. The people of Canada, through their elected representatives, were shut down by the government. That is why I have to talk about it. The Liberals shut down the debate on the Nisga'a treaty which was another important bill. We are dealing with the most important issues of the century and we are not allowed to talk about them. When the treaty was to be debated in the British Columbia legislature, the government did not let the members talk. The NDP rammed the treaty through. That is why we are debating this.

The hon. member who sits on the other side of the House, when his party was in opposition, knew about closure. Why is his party doing it again?

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in participating in this very interesting debate that has been going on here on Bill C-4, a bill committing Canada to implement its obligations for an international space station.

All of us in the House are very proud of the contribution of the Canadian Space Agency. We are very proud of the research and of the Canadian robotic arm. All of us are very proud of the contribution of Julie Payette and other scientists. It is a very interesting bill from one angle. All of us in the official opposition support the broad thrust of the bill. However we do have some reservations and concerns.

We want to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected. If a company is working in space or on the space station, we are concerned about how that intellectual property will be protected. Those issues are not properly addressed in the bill.

All companies that are doing research and development need a long time to do their research. According to the World Trade Organization agreement that was signed by member countries, Canada being one of them, there is a limit of 25 years. I think that is a major concern.

There are some other issues such as whether the scientists and researchers will be getting a fair reward for the innovations they will be making. I am interested in publishing some of my research as well as some of the discoveries and inventions which I have made. I know how important intellectual properties are.

Another concern is whether all the benefits from the space station will be dispersed equally in Canada. We know that $430 million per year will be spent for the Canadian Space Agency that is based in St. Hubert, Quebec. I do not know what contributions or benefits that space agency will create for people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia, whether we will be seeing any benefits or jobs created in other parts of the country, or whether those will be focused only on the main station.

Another area we are concerned about is transparency. When the bill was brought to the House there was absolutely no consultation with parliament and absolutely no input from parliament before the treaty was signed. When the treaty was signed it was brought here to be ratified. We are here to debate and ratify it without making any amendments. That is another major concern.

The other day we all debated the Nisga'a bill in the House. We were not allowed to participate in making any amendments or making any contributions from parliament. That is the kind of transparency we see from the government in the House.

One important point about the space contribution bill we are debating today is regarding the mission of the international space station. It is to enable long term exploration of space and to provide benefits to people on Earth. What we are doing is for the benefit of the people living on Earth. That means that the international space station is all about life on Earth.

Let us talk about life on Earth. Life on Earth is so important that all of us are talking about it. The other day when we debated the Nisga'a bill in the House we saw how the government invoked closure and did not let us raise a voice on it. That is the life we are talking about. That is the lack of understanding we are talking about.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what we want to debate. We are saying that all Canadians are equal and that all Canadians should be treated equally. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not.

We want to say that there should be a new start for aboriginal people in Canada. We want aboriginal people to be full and equal participants in Canadian society. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners both on reserve and off reserve. There is nothing wrong in that. We want aboriginal families to be protected by the same law that governs non-aboriginal families. Is there anything wrong in that? There is nothing wrong in that. That is the life in Canada we are talking about.

We want aboriginal people to have the same rights and protections that every Canadian enjoys. We want to eliminate the discriminatory barriers that have widened the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people for a long long time. We want to ensure that the native governments are fully accountable to grassroots natives. We want to ensure that a bright future is there for all Canadians regardless of the colour of their skin or their origin. Is there anything wrong in that? That is the life in Canada we are talking about. That is the life on this planet we are talking about.

The government members invoked closure on the bill. They did not let us raise our voice. If I look at the record of how debate was shut down in parliament by the Tory government, it took eight years for it to reach the level of 50 closures on debate. It took only five years for the Liberal government to reach the level of 50 closures on debate, up until March 1999.

I do not understand how the government can shut down debate on an important issue. The Nisga'a treaty is the most important treaty the government has signed in this century and it invoked closure on it. It did not let us debate it.

I will quote some important statements made by members on the other side concerning closure when they were the official opposition. When in opposition the current government House leader spoke differently about time allocation. He said: “I am shocked. Perhaps I should not be shocked. This government has used closure on dozens of occasions. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation”. He was talking about a particular debate in the House on November 16, 1992. This is recorded in Hansard on page 13,451. He said: “Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That is what the present government House leader said when he was in the official opposition. If I repeat his comments back to him, what would he say now? Is he not ashamed of himself when he invokes time allocation on the debate of these important issues?

Let us talk about another prominent member who is now the foreign affairs minister. He said this in reference to closure in a Toronto Star article on April 1, 1993: “It displays the utter disdain with which the government treats the Canadian people”.

When the present Deputy Speaker was in opposition he said: “The government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House, closure has been used 15 times in parliament since—”

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the interesting debate we have been participating also provoked interest in me.