Gurmant Grewal

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

He is right when he talks about the mess the government has created. The other day we were debating the gun legislation. The government is always focusing on the wrong thing. It does not focus on the people who are killing people, it focuses on the people who are shooting ducks.

Another example is the APEC scandal about which we were talking in the House. The government, the Prime Minister and the bureaucracies are focusing on the rights of brutal dictators and not on the rights of peaceful protesters.

There are a number of examples where the government has focused wrongly, but in this case there are many examples, with globalization and the complexities of international trade, that things are changing in the world. It is a very dynamic field we are talking about.

In the past there were some improvements needed, some where the government failed to address the issue at the time, some because of the change in the overall global business environment. These changes were to be brought in, which they have been. I am expecting the government to listen to the amendments by the official opposition this time so that we can make it effective.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central once again to support the amendments to Bill C-35, the Liberal government's proposal to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, CITTA.

SIMA legislation governs procedures under which two types of duties are imposed on imported goods, anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

Under world trading rules, every country is permitted to impose these duties on imported goods in two cases, if these goods are being dumped into their own country, or if the production of these goods is being subsidized in the country of export.

Before we proceed further into the debate, I want to explain that dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are less than their selling price in the exporter's domestic market or at unprofitable prices.

Countervailing duties are a tax put on imports to offset the subsidy used to produce the good in the exporting country.

Let me read to the House an example from my own constituency. Last month Bed-Roc Industries scored a victory against an American competitor who was dumping tiles in British Columbia and Alberta.

Bed-Roc Industries has been manufacturing in my constituency of Surrey Central for the last 10 years and suffered material injury when Custom Building Products imported and underpriced its wonderboard tile, damaging Bed-Roc's business. Bed-Roc was forced to cut prices and lost sales to maintain market share.

The American company Custom Canada was charged with weighted average margins of dumping at 36% and Revenue Canada imposed duties for five years.

If dumping had taken place on its part in the first year when it started, Bed-Roc would have been out of business. While I congratulate the management of Bed-Roc, I shall say thanks to SIMA and CITTA and NAFTA.

Chapter 19 of NAFTA, which contains virtually all the provisions of the free trade agreement, addresses at length restrictive trade practices including anti-dumping measures and anti-subsidy measures.

SIMA passed into law in early 1984. Since then, to comply with the new international obligations, this House has passed many statutory amendments to SIMA, mainly with respect to the definition of a subsidy and the determination of injury and the matter of establishing dumping margins.

Since 1984 SIMA had not been reviewed to determine whether it continues to meet the expectations of the Canadian business community or whether it is consistent with the international environment.

The House of Commons subcommittees that studied SIMA recommended 16 improvements and 64 technical amendments and corrections that we are debating in this bill today.

I have mentioned all this because the bill is fairly complex. Since time will not permit extensive debate on this issue, I will summarize the overall assessment.

Canada must provide the Canadian business community with the tools it needs to face international competition. To cope with dumping and subsidizing, SIMA and CITTA are essential instruments. Passage of the proposed amendments will make these tools really effective. Globalization and the nature of the complexities of international trade will force further reviews in the future.

The official opposition is satisfied with the proposed changes but would like to see the assessment of public interest brought in earlier in the process. That is very important.

Any negative impact than an anti-dumping duty would have on downstream processors or on consumers is not considered until after an assessment has been rendered.

A final determination of injury by the CITT and downstream repercussion of injury should be considered much earlier. For example, in the famous case of U.S. baby food manufacturer Gerber, it was charged with dumping baby food in Canada.

The resulting 60% increase in Gerber prices for the next five years has eliminated Gerber Canada Inc. from the Canadian market and caused the loss of all its customers to it almost sole rival H. J. Heinz Canada Ltd.

Heinz already had 80% of a $70 million a year market share and now enjoys almost a monopoly.

The decision sparked an outcry from Canadian public interest groups, including the Canadian Pediatric Society and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If public interest had been considered prior to the duties being rendered, the parents who had been feeding their babies with the Gerber brand and who were satisfied with the suitability and taste of the food and found no allergic reaction would not have suffered.

However, the consumers buying Gerber were not considered and they suffered injuries, even though the duty was imposed to protect them on the other hand.

In talking about countervailing duties, there is another side to the story. The economy of British Columbia is in or near a recession. The British Columbian government has imposed a 70% stumpage fee on softwood lumber. The government has now created such a bureaucratic situation that the lumber industry is in trouble. If the government reduces the stumpage fee, the Americans on the other side will think we are giving subsidies to the industry. This will cause a problem because the rules and regulations are not laid out clearly. If the stumpage fee is reduced our industry suffers and if it is increased our industry also suffers.

Canadian businesses and consumers are supportive of the measures we have to ensure that in the Canadian marketplace we have a level playing field.

Our federal government can and does take measures to ensure that the competition in our marketplace is conducted in a fair manner. However, there are other examples. In the salmon fishery, the agricultural industry and with dairy products the rules are not clearly laid on the table.

The Special Import Measures Act ensures fairness. So far the Liberal government has acted like a blood sucking parasite on the thin skin of small and medium size businesses in our country. We just saw the largest tax hike in Canadian history, a 73% increase in CPP premiums. Can anyone believe this?

About 90% of jobs in this country are created by small businesses. The government has to have a fair attitude and a fair marketing environment for our businesses to grow so they can create the jobs we need. It is a good thing our Canadian firms have the means to lodge complaints.

We support a comprehensive effort to realign Canada's economic policies to be consistent with our international trade requirements. As the official opposition, we can support this bill if it is amended. We ask for one amendment only. As the official opposition's international trade critic, the hon. member for Peace River, has said, we are satisfied with what the bill will accomplish but if we go one step further we on this side of the House will support, with amendment, the effort that Bill C-35 represents in terms of meeting the expectations of Canadian businesses.

What we are offering is an opportunity for the government to consider what we are asking for and we are looking forward to its co-operation at the committee stage so that this bill can be supported by the official opposition. It is up to the Liberals. Our demand for a simple amendment along the lines that I have described is not unreasonable. We shall see if the Liberals are willing to accommodate us so that we can contribute the best intentions to strongly support our small and medium size businesses.

[Yves De Roussan, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage to Yves de Roussan, one of the two Canadians killed on Swissair flight 111.

Mr. de Roussan was a regional adviser with UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund. His wife and four children survive him.

The Canadian and international aid community and the developing world will miss him.

He began working with UNICEF helping street kids in Brazil. He worked with children on the front line with issues like AIDS and drug abuse. In Madagascar and Angola he headed emergency programs under extremely difficult conditions.

He was appointed regional adviser for youth programs in the former Soviet Union and central Europe.

Mr. de Roussan left behind a legacy of hope for deprived children in the world.

We have lost a great Canadian and an aid worker who has done our country proud around the world helping people and children in particular.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I may not answer the question very satisfactorily because I do not know the background details of this bill. I want to be honest and straightforward.

However, I believe if the amendments proposed by the official opposition are accepted this will be a very effective tool. It will be much more effective than the fingerprints which we allow the RCMP or law enforcement agencies to use.

Let me give an example. Let us say we sent a soldier to war and we give him a gun but we do not give him any ammunition. What good is the gun?

We have given the fingerprint tool but why not DNA identification? The Canadian Police Association is asking for it. There are 35,000 members who have to deal with crime who are asking for this technology. They are on the frontlines defending us, making our streets free from crime and making our homes and streets safe. They are the ones who are pleading in strong language to the government to make DNA identification an effective tool.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking this question.

Canadians will recall that when Clifford Olson made an attempt at the faint hope clause his hearing took place in my constituency. If when that violent criminal committed the crime the DNA sampling was there and the law enforcement agencies had that tool they could have solved so many other murders years before. They probably could have put a stop to the murders before more were committed. He was on the loose and we could not convict him. If we had had this particular tool we may have been able to save many more lives.

When we see the alarm signs on the doors and windows of homes in our constituencies it gives us an indication that Canadians do not have faith in this Liberal government. It gives us the message that something needs to be done but the government is sitting on its hands. Why are we not giving such an innovative and modern tool to police forces? Who are we afraid of? Are we afraid of the violent criminal? Do we not want to protect the rights of the victims?

Crime is on the rise simply because there is no one to put a stop to the criminals. I think the government should do something, do the honourable thing and accept the amendments from the official opposition and give a tool with teeth to law enforcement agencies.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this particular amendment to the bill. Before I start I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose, who put forward the official opposition's position on this bill very eloquently.

On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I rise to express our opposition to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

My colleagues in the official opposition, Canadians concerned about victims of crime, my constituents and a host of others inside and outside of the law enforcement community are very disappointed with what the Liberals have done with this bill.

The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest effective technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the worst violent crimes in society. DNA identification is that kind of tool.

If used to its fullest potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. The technology available through DNA identification would make our society safer. It would protect our homes, our families and our lives from criminal activity and, in particular, violent crime. It is my understanding that DNA capability will greatly enhance the work of our law enforcement community.

Over the next few years and perhaps decades this technology will virtually change the world in terms of crime solving, crime detection and the positive identification of criminals.

If passed unamended, Bill C-3 will provide Canadians with a false sense of security. Therefore, the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate and incomplete piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. However, we do not support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Why do I oppose this bill? Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of DNA technology. Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of the DNA sample at the time of the criminal charge being laid.

This is where fingerprints are taken. This is exactly the time to take DNA samples. How can the Liberals fail to provide our law enforcement agencies with the opportunity to get a DNA sample at the time of the arrest?

Bill C-3 does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

In the hands of the Liberals Bill C-3 is actually a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. This is a needlessly restrictive use of DNA in Bill C-3. The official opposition is holding the Liberals responsible for denying our police the use of DNA which they have been asking for for quite some time.

The Liberals are so arrogant that they are attempting to fool Canadians about what the bill does and does not do. It does not go far enough and we must not be fooled. It is an inadequate piece of legislation and we cannot support it.

I would like to quote from a September 16, 1998 letter addressed to me by the president of the Canadian Police Association. I am sure that other members in this House may have also received similar letters. This letter which I am going to quote from is a scathing indictment of the Liberal government. On the first page it reads:

The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 35,000 front line police officers across Canada.... Bill C-3, as currently drafted, is seriously flawed, and will needlessly allow Canadians to be put at risk.

The CPA has lobbied for the creation of a DNA databank for many years. Since the beginning, we stressed the important impact a bank could have on public safety, a goal that we work towards everyday whether it be on the streets or on Parliament Hill. We said then, as we say now, that for this initiative to work samples must be taken from suspects when arrested. By doing so, we will maximize the potential crime prevention aspects of the bill which is a goal we all share.

Do not underestimate the importance of this issue to the CPA. We are not, and never have been, averse to take every public opportunity to inform the public when the government creates and passes flawed legislation. We will do that again regarding Bill C-3. We will make sure that Canadians understand that their government is risking their lives. We will make sure that if one of your constituents is harmed because of this flawed legislation, that they will know who to ask for an explanation.

The Liberals should be ashamed that 35,000 Canadian police officers on the front lines have been seriously disappointed by this Liberal government's legislation.

Canadians want our police officers to be protected and do the best job they can. The Liberals are not allowing our police officers the use of DNA identification that they are asking for and our police officers deserve more support from us, from our government, than that which this Liberal government is giving them.

The Liberals are choosing to slow down this process of the advent of DNA identification into our crime fighting efforts. The Liberals are crippling the ability of our law enforcement agencies to use this technology. This government has refused to allow the amendments to this bill that have been put forward by the official opposition.

This is not an issue to play politics with. These amendments would put teeth into Bill C-3. But it is as if the Liberals do not want that.

The Liberals are afraid to unleash this powerful crime fighting tool because they are more concerned about the criminals and the rights of the accused than they are about the victims of crime.

Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead to use DNA identification tools ever since the technology was first invented. For example, it would just be like forcing people to use candles or kerosene lanterns instead of electric light bulbs. We ask our police forces to use fingerprints but not DNA identification.

The Liberal government is supposed to be responsible for shaping our justice system. This is the government of the day. Canadians are relying on the government but the government is just sitting on its hands.

The Prime Minister continues to show his willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy, whether by allowing the parole of violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again or by allowing freedom of convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3. The safety of our society is a secondary issue for this Liberal government.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe in doing so the impact of the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society. It seems to me that if DNA identification were positive and unequivocal proof then the rights of an individual would be best served by that person providing a DNA sample. DNA samples are conclusive if processed carefully and correctly. A DNA sample can disprove as well as prove whether an accused person was involved in a crime. The Liberal's argument in support of allowing the judge not to issue a warrant for the taking of a DNA sample fails.

Because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of a person accused of heinous crimes, the Liberals are restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement agencies.

Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold hearted legal talk to deny giving our law enforcement agencies what they need. The Liberals used cold legal arguments and some kind of numbers to deny help to all of the victims of tainted blood, so probably they are used to it.

Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate. My community wants to know how many more innocent people will lose their lives before changes are made in our criminal justice system.

This government is failing our youth, our seniors, our communities and our society because it lacks the moral strength to deal with violent crime and repeat offenders.

During the summer I did some door knocking in my constituency. People were amazed and surprised by why a politician would do door knocking between elections.

While knocking on these doors I noticed that almost second home in my constituency had a sticker on their door or window warning that the home was armed with an alarm system. It gives me the signal that people are not feeling safe on the streets, as we know, but are also not feeling safe in their own homes.

A few months ago a senior was brutally beaten to death in his own home in my constituency. The constituents I represent in Surrey Central are living in the wake of the arrest of five young men for the brutal beating and murder of a temple caretaker.

This Liberal government is spineless, heartless, gutless, deaf and blind. Everyone knows that the government is not getting tough on crime.

My constituents and I are warning this government to get tough on crime. We want it to do the work that is necessary to protect our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3. It does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want in terms of using DNA identification tools.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have already debated the first eight motions of Bill C-20 which were divided into three groups. Finally we are debating Group No. 4. There are three motions in this group, Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 ask that a single private individual, an adult over the age of 18, be allowed to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The procedure now requires at least six individuals to lodge a complaint before it can be brought forward before the commissioner. This is a mechanism to help to ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner.

The purpose is to avoid any abuse of the system or abuse of the liberty given to the individual to bring forward the complaint. On the other hand all complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed appropriate would be placed before the competition tribunal.

Motion No. 11 requests that a single individual be allowed to bring a matter directly before the tribunal, removing any direct involvement of the commissioner. This will have potential for abuse again incurring unnecessary additional costs and creating unnecessary additional math for the small businessman. It is more desirable to have all complaints that fall under the Competition Act investigated first by the commissioner and then where deemed appropriate placed before the tribunal. Let us not put a small business or any business for that matter into an unwanted regulatory mess.

To summarize I remind the House that when the bill was introduced in the House the Reform Party put forward certain amendments to the bill so that we could support it. The government has accepted all those amendments. Therefore we approve of the effort by the government to modernize the Competition Act.

The Reform Party supports vigorous measures to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace. This includes promoting competition and competitive pricing and strengthening and vigorously enforcing competition and anti-combines legislation. We support severe penalties for collusion or price fixing in a competitive marketplace that serves the consumer well. It is reasonable to expect freedom from deception or collusion or any other anti-competitive practice that will inhibit the successful operation of the marketplace.

I am glad to support Bill C-20 on behalf of the citizens of Surrey Central who are citizens of this great country and senior citizens who are more vulnerable to fraud by telemarketers. We will be more than happy to support the bill but not at any cost. At this time we cannot support the amendments in Group No. 4, and as I mentioned earlier in the other three groups as well.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequent and related amendments to others acts.

There are four groups of amendments put forward by the hon. member for Mercier. We already debated two groups of amendments and in the third group of amendments we are talking about various aspects of businesses, as the hon. member for Skeena has said.

In the third group, Motion No. 6 would include a prohibition against offering a statement or a warranty or a guarantee for performance or efficacy or the life of the product without adequate and proper tests thereof.

This amendment would wrongly place the onus on the telemarketer to ensure that the claims by manufacturers or service providers are accurate. Telemarketers must act with due diligence in their relationship with the manufacturer or the service provider regarding the quality and efficacy of the product or service as claimed by the manufacturer.

So it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer and not that of the telemarketer. The legal framework in the bill offers enforceable guidelines for professional conduct among telemarketers. Furthermore section 52 of the act, as amended by Bill C-20, is reasonably broad. It is sufficiently broad so as to include false claims concerning the warranty.

As the hon. member for Skeena has mentioned, we are talking about businesses. On the other side we are talking about consumers. The official opposition supports small businesses. We understand that small businesses need more opportunities because they are the ones that create 96% of the jobs in the country. But we know the red tape is too much for them. Government is always on the back of small businesses. The cost of doing business in this country is going up. Taxes are going up.

We have to create a balance between the protection of the consumer and freedom of business. It is not in the best interest of consumers to create legislation that will be unduly costly, cumbersome for business and not be hurting the fraudulent businesses.

I will be supporting Bill C-20 but opposing Motion No. 6 because senior citizens, the most vulnerable in our society, are damaged more and more by fraudulent telemarketing scams. We have to protect them immediately against telemarketing fraud.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, earlier I addressed the four groups together. Now we are on Group No. 2 of Bill C-20.

Industry Canada deserves our support for this particular initiative. We recognize that Bill C-20 is very important and some of the amendments are pretty good. The thing here is we are fighting against a timeframe and while we are against a timeframe, fraudulent telemarketing is hurting the most vulnerable and very poor in our society. It hurts people who cannot defend themselves against these marketing scams.

For example, our senior citizens are the hardest hit category in this particular scam. We all know that deceptive telemarketing hurts honest people and those telemarketers mar the whole industry. Senior citizens are less reliant on the Internet at this time. We know that Internet is coming up very fast. We know therefore it is not pressing at this time. The amendments in this bill should have been passed yesterday because every day telemarketing scams are hurting vulnerable seniors.

Canada's high tech economy will become Internet dependent one day. The time will come when we have to address this issue. I agree 100% the Internet must be regulated. It must be regulated in a way that allows commerce to flourish and consumers to be protected. This matter will be addressed at a ministerial conference in October, and the industry committee will be addressing this particular issue. This issue should be studied at the steering committee.

The second group of amendments will expand Bill C-20 to include Internet communications. Bill C-20 is aimed at addressing the whole telemarketing industry itself. This bill will address the potential for psychological coercion during personal telephone communications. High pressure telemarketing sales people try to sell their programs and services. It is difficult for senior citizens to hang up sometimes.

The Bloc amendments do not account for the fact that the same level of coercion recognized in telephone communications is not present in Internet communications. Internet communication allows one to simply point and click with the mouse in order to delete and put an end to the solicitation.

Person to person voice communication is not as easy to terminate because it is more interactive. No doubt there is a need for some rules to be applied to Internet communication, but, as I said, this issue should be resolved later so that we can give adequate protection to our senior citizens who are vulnerable to these telemarketing scams.

I will therefore oppose the particular set of motions in group 2. I do not think there is a member in this House who does not support this bill. We should get on with passing this bill so that those people can be protected.

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the nature of the amendments is such that we could group them and discuss them in that manner but I appreciate your comments.

The purpose of this bill is twofold, to modernize the Competition Act and to respond to a changing business and enforcement environment by increasing efficiency in the administration of the act. In principle this bill deals with deceptive marketing and deceptive telemarketing. It makes criminal prohibition broader and more flexible. It streamlines the approach to merger reviews. One good thing about how this bill addresses deceptive marketing is that it will create efficiency by allowing civil offences to be addressed without lengthy court delays.

New provisions under Bill C-20 will address deceptive telemarketing practices. For example, in selling lotteries, gambling or vacations to our senior citizens, some telemarketers sell emotions and they defraud them. But high pressure selling tactics are addressed through this bill by requiring telemarketers to give fair and reasonable disclosure of information at the beginning of each telephone call. This includes the identity of the company, the purpose of the communication, the nature of the product or the business interest, the price, any material restrictions and so on. This is particularly important because more businesses like banks, credit unions, airlines, et cetera, are expanding their call centres.

This bill addresses streamlining the merger process. Under the current legislation the requirement for information is very broad and not necessarily efficient or effective. The amount of information required will depend on the complexity of the merger. The government will have time to examine the critical merger proposal thoroughly. For example, there is the controversial merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal.

Many of us are experienced in receiving junk mail certificates that grant us millions of dollars. Some fraudulent businesses grant winning prizes while they ask for money in advance for shipment, et cetera, and keep the money. We have to stop all these practices. We must address these unfair practices and ensure fair competition. That is what all members of the House should be doing. We should work toward fair competition in the marketplace.

The official opposition believes in a competitive market arena that serves consumers well. It must be free of deception, collusion or any anti-competitive practice that inhibits its successful operation. On behalf of the people of Surrey Central and other Canadians, in particular senior citizens who need immediate adequate protection against telemarketing fraud, I will be voting in support of Bill C-20. I will have to vote against the amendments we are considering today.