Gurmant Grewal

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member, who spoke about the international trade aspect of the magazine bill which we are debating today. He said in his remarks that if Americans did retaliate there would be a chilling effect on our trade.

If he knows that there would be a chilling effect, why does he not bring the whole issue into perspective and mention it to the minister, whose selfish motive is to have this bill passed even if it affects the steel industry, the plastic industry, the agriculture industry and the textile industry? Would there not be significant damage done to the international trade relations we have with the U.S.? We have more than $1 billion in trade with our major trading partner every day.

The member also mentioned that Canada will have to argue at the World Trade Organization in the case of retaliation. We all know that subsidies hurt Canadian businesses or Canadian interests. We know what the story is on softwood lumber. We know what the story is on agricultural trade. We saw what happened a few months ago with agricultural trade. We also know that the government sold out the Canadian interest on the Pacific salmon fishery in the recent treaty it negotiated. It has already lost the war on magazines with the Americans.

Can the hon. member shed some light on this? What will be the effect? Since he is an international trade specialist himself, can the hon. member shed some light on how much these subsidies will cost Canadian businesses, as well as American businesses? Because if this goes to the World Trade Organization, according to chapter 11 of the NAFTA, the subsidies will have to be given to American businesses as well. How shameful. Can the hon. member shed some light on how much these subsidies will cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Hazardous Products Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-482.

The private member's bill being proposed by the NDP member of parliament would prohibit the sale, advertisement and importation of consumer products which contain a certain level of lead or cadmium. This bill also seeks to ban toys used by children under the age of three which contain phthalates.

This seems like a fair enough bill and I will support it. The intention, the protection of our children's health, is a noble cause. We commend the hon. member from the NDP for bringing this matter before the House because the government does not and is not going to bring these matters to the floor of the House of Commons.

We know that the government has cut $23 billion from our health care and education systems. While Canadians are trying to protect the health of our children through efforts such as the one we are debating today, the Liberals are working against us. They are balancing the books of our federal government on the backs of taxpayers. They are heavily taxing families with little children. It is a wonder that young families even have the money to purchase these toys which may harm the health of their children.

The health critic for the official opposition over the years has met many times with the Canadian Toy Manufacturers' Association, the Vinyl Council of Canada, Irwin Toys and many other groups and individuals concerned about this matter.

It is indeed a matter of great concern when we hear that toys may contain toxins or dangerous chemicals. We have all seen little children with plastic toys in their mouths or in contact with their skin.

In October 1997 the health protection branch of Health Canada released a report on its investigation into lead and cadmium in certain vinyl toys and other consumer products. The government has done absolutely nothing about establishing guidelines as a result of that report. In fact the Liberal majority on the other side of the House even voted down a private member's bill requiring warning labels to be placed on PVC toys.

The report dismissed the risk posed by lead and cadmium. This was met with charges that the report was a disservice to the Canadian people. The branch has yet to release a report on the risks posed by phthalates which it promised. Canadians are still waiting for the report.

On the other hand, Denmark, Austria and Sweden are countries that have banned phthalates in infant toys. The U.S. government, our neighbour, has told manufacturers to eliminate the use of lead that may be accessible to children.

Canada has no limits on phthalates, lead or cadmium in plastic consumer products. The Liberals are allowing our nation to be an international dumping ground for these toxic, hazardous and dangerous toys, as well as other products.

The Liberals have allowed us to be a dumping ground for terrorists and other violent offenders because they have refused to fix our flawed, broken immigration and refugee system.

The Liberals have caused British Columbia, where I come from, to not only become a dumping ground but a distribution point and a clearing house for child pornography because they have refused to support our laws concerning the possession of child pornography.

The Liberals have also caused British Columbia, particularly the lower mainland area of Vancouver, including my home town of Surrey, to become a dumping ground for international drug dealers and cartels which send bogus refugees to our area to sell drugs to our children or smuggle themselves or drugs into the U.S.

Our solicitor general leaves our RCMP, which has its largest detachment in Surrey, underfunded and understaffed. In Surrey we have only four police officers patrolling the border between the U.S. and Canada. Our police officers must handle problems associated with a major port of entry along with their domestic policing duties.

We are waiting for a review from the solicitor general on our RCMP service, just like we are waiting for a report from the government on the risks posed by phthalates.

On behalf of my constituents I am tempted to support the bill, for no other reason than I can sympathize with the frustration of the NDP member, who sits with me on the health committee, who is trying to do some work and instead gets stonewalled by the Liberal government.

Some Canadians cannot wait for the Liberals. Hepatitis C victims are dying while fighting the Liberal government in court. They cannot wait. The Liberal health minister tried to close the file and ignore the conclusion of a royal commission on tainted blood which recommended compensating every person affected by federally controlled tainted blood.

There have been accusations about the toxic level and the safety of certain toys. The problem is in making sure that we are not hearing spurious representations on the danger of toys. We must be sure that the problem actually exists and is rampant to the extent that we have to take legislative action.

I have heard that some claims are not so accurate. One complaint declared that a child teething on a particular toy was actually at risk from material in the plastic of the toy because of dangerous and hazardous chemicals. I then heard that science proved that the child would have to have the toy in its mouth constantly for years to suffer any bad effects. On the other hand, in the research I have done concerning this bill, one manufacturer maintained that a child would have to have a toy in its mouth for three hours before it would suffer a health hazard.

All parents, and I am also a parent, know that it is easy for a child to have a toy in its mouth for three hours. The toy is even more likely to be in contact with the skin. It is not as though the child has a full time job, goes somewhere and does not have time to put these toys in its mouth.

We need good scientific studies to be accurate about what toys and which chemicals are threatening the health of our children.

We have two sides of the spectrum. The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of the harmful effect of anything; all of those hazardous chemicals and products that we are talking about.

The accusers need to have strong scientific evidence. Canadians need to see independent, peer reviewed, double-blind studies which clearly conclude that something is harmful.

The health minister should have the health protection branch do the report on phthalates. We cannot rely on the studies performed by the manufacturers which declare their toys safe. It would be like relying on the fox to mind the chicken coop.

During my research for today's debate I found a toll free telephone number to be used by parents who want to check out the PVC safety of their children's toys. The health minister has shut down that toll free number. The service was only set up to run during the big PVC toy scare of 1997. Now the government acts as it if all went away and nothing happened.

As a result of all the shenanigans—did I say Shawinigans—that I have encountered while preparing for today's debate, I will support the bill on behalf of the parents, the children who are defenceless, and all consumers of plastic products in Surrey Central. My heart goes out to the private member who introduced the bill and fought hard to bring it forth. The weak, arrogant Liberal government has refused to do it.

I know how difficult it is to work with the arrogant, weak Liberal government which has absolutely no vision of where it is going. It is not trying to do anything to protect health and education.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my constituency is one of the largest constituencies in Canada. I have a diverse population in my riding. I am here to represent my constituents. They have been calling to tell me that they want to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here is the definition of marriage. On this side of the House we are not against anyone or anything. We are here today simply to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman. That is the only issue we are debating today.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons that motivate prospective immigrants to Canada.

One reason is the definition of marriage with family as the cornerstone of our society. What is a family? How do families begin? The definition of marriage is the one we are debating here. Prospective immigrants view the definition of marriage as it is stated in the law and which we are here to reaffirm today as one of the reasons.

That was one of the reasons I came to Canada. With due respect, this is the definition of marriage. It is between one man and one woman. That is what we are here to reaffirm today.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I signed one amendment. I gave it to the clerk and the clerk has it. It has been presented to the hon. Chair.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that amendment and change it. I move that the motion be amended by inserting between the words “to” and “state” the word “unequivocally”.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central in support of the official opposition's motion. The hon. member for Calgary Centre made an excellent speech and I congratulate him on it.

For the benefit of those who do not understand the motion, I will read it again:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

The reason we have caused this motion to be brought forward is simply that the courts and others are asking the House for clear instructions with respect to this matter.

Canadians are concerned about the possible erosion of the traditional definition of the institution of marriage. Our federal government, through the elected representatives in this place, provide our courts with legislation, the laws of our land, for the courts to interpret.

With respect to the sanctity of the traditional definition of marriage, the courts have been left to defining it themselves or calling on the government for direction. Today the official opposition is exercising its responsibility to ensure that the definition of marriage is reaffirmed in our federal legislature.

Marriage should be affirmed. The motion is not about being against anyone or anything but is about being for marriage. The official opposition believes that the term marriage is a cornerstone of public policy and ought not to be unilaterally changed by the courts, by bureaucrats or by cabinet behind closed doors as is usually done. There should be the full light of public input, parliamentary debate and free votes in the House.

Our courts take guidance from parliament on important social policies and other matters. Today's motion is intended to give expression to the will of the parliament on marriage, a cornerstone of our public policy.

It is legitimate for parliament to give guidance on important social policy matters. Parliamentarians can reform the current status of the law, especially given debates surrounding recent court decisions relating to the definition of spouse, et cetera. Today the official opposition motion provides that opportunity.

There have been, there are and likely there will be future court challenges to the definition of marriage. It would be inappropriate for parliament to remain silent about this important social policy term in the midst of great public debate on the matter.

The courts often indicate that they are looking for guidance from parliament on different issues. The motion is an opportunity to clearly express the will of parliament. The motion allows parliament to better engage in a dialogue with the courts with respect to the definition of marriage.

By having a debate and a vote on the matter in parliament we are allowing the elected representatives of the Canadian people to reflect the views of Canadians on what they feel about the definition of marriage, an important Canadian institution. This is properly the role of parliament as such input is not able to take place in court litigation.

The opinion of the Canadian people is very clearly in favour of the current definition of marriage. In the 36th parliament 84 members stood in the House and tabled petitions from constituents calling for parliament to enact legislation to define that a marriage can be entered into between a single male and a single female.

People should not be shut up. They are the ones we came here to represent. We should listen to these people when they send petitions to the House. The supply day motion is an opportunity for members and parliament as a whole to stand by their constituents and communicate so that their voices are heard.

Being a relatively new immigrant and new Canadian, I can share with the House that many people around the world choose to immigrate to Canada because of what they know about our country. When they come they believe they will find the traditional definition of marriage, a union between a man and a woman. They trust that the federal government supports that definition. If we did not, these immigrants might have immigrated elsewhere in the world.

Canada's demographics have changed significantly since Confederation. People immigrating to Canada now come mostly from Asia. They share the social values that include the definition of marriage we are debating today. They believe the family is an institution, a cornerstone or a pillar of society. This strong belief in the traditional family values is another reason they often have joint families.

During the election campaign a young man came to my office and asked for my views on the definition of marriage. I told him I believed that marriage was a union of a man and a woman. He said that he did not agree and that two men or two women could marry. I asked him if he would like to have his own children. He said he did not care, that having children was not important. I told him that if his father or mother had thought the same way he would not be talking to me. There was silence for a moment and then he said he had never thought of that.

Later he told me that originally he would not vote for me, but he was sorry now. He thanked me for making him realize that. He not only voted for me, as he told me afterward, but he became one of my volunteers.

Recently the House dealt with Bill C-78, changes to the pension fund of federal government employees that will allow the Liberals to make a one time $30 billion grab. One effect of the bill was to expand the benefits of the pension plan. It extended survivors benefits outside of marriage to marriage dependent on private sexuality regardless of gender.

When a contributor to a pension plan dies, the benefits go to the surviving husband or wife. The bill maintains that provision, which is good. It also extends the benefits beyond this point in a new way. The government said its intent was to extend the benefits to same sex relationships as well.

The issue here today is not of same sex benefits for couples; the issue is the definition of marriage. No sex means no benefits. This is not the right policy. It has added a new legal expression, a relationship of a conjugal nature with absolutely no definition of what it means.

In conclusion, the official opposition in our leadership role is asking the government and all sides of the House to affirm support for the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman.

I would like to move an amendment to the main motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “in Canada” with the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 123(1) I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations concerning SOR/82-171, relating to the Stuart-Trembleur Lake Band.

Your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Pesticides, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of pesticides on fresh fruit and vegetables sold in Canada has more than doubled since 1994. The amount of illegal pesticides on our domestic produce has tripled since 1990.

Canadians want to know that their food is safe. Why will the health minister not allow the pesticide management agency to release pesticide ingredients lists to Canadians? Why is there the secrecy?