Gurmant Grewal

[Competition Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you and all other members in the House after the summer vacation. I have been looking forward to the opening of the session to hold the Liberal government accountable. But today in the next 10 minutes I will be kind to it.

I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak against the proposed Bloc amendments to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

The official opposition supports this bill. We agree with the objective of this bill. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, our new industry critic, has very eloquently expressed our support for this bill.

When the bill was introduced in the House earlier the Reform Party put forward certain amendments to the bill before we could support it. The government has accepted all those amendments. Therefore we approve of the efforts by this government to modernize the Competition Act.

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

I can deal with the four groups of amendments as a whole because the official opposition opposes all four groups of amendments. In Group No. 1 the first motion and the third motion are unnecessary. They only seek to change the structure of the bill and do no affect the contents of the bill. Motion No. 2 would change the intent of the bill by removing the words “knowingly” and “recklessly”. The motion would counter the creation of the new civil law framework meant to deal with deliberate and flagrant telemarketing frauds.

The second group of amendments would expand Bill C-20 to include Internet communications.

Bill C-20 is aimed at addressing the telemarketing industry. This bill will also address the potential psychological coercion during person to person telecommunication or telephone conversations. 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 communications allow one to simply point and click in order to delete and put an end to this solicitation, whereas person to person live communication is not as easy to terminate. It is more interactive. No doubt there is a need for some rules to be applied to Internet communications. We can appreciate what the third party in the House intends to accomplish with Motions Nos. 4 through 8.

Bill C-20 is not the appropriate vehicle and cannot accommodate the inclusion of Internet communications. In the third group of amendments, Motion No. 6 would include a prohibition against offering a statement, warranty, guarantee of performance, efficacy or length of life about the product without adequate and proper test thereof. This amendment wrongly places the onus on the telemarketer to ensure that the service provider or manufacturer claims are accurate. While telemarketers must act with due diligence in their relationship with the manufacturer or the service provider about the quality and efficacy of the product or the service as supported by the manufacturer's claim, it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer and not the telemarketer.

The legal framework provided in the bill offers enforceable guidelines for professional conduct among telemarketers. Furthermore, section 52 as amended by Bill C-20 is reasonably broad so as to include false claims concerning warranties, et cetera.

In Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 9 and 10 ask that a single private individual over the age of 18 be allowed to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The current procedure requires that at least six individuals submit a complaint. This is a mechanism to help to ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner. All complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and, where deemed appropriate, are placed before the 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. Again, 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.

The purpose of this bill is twofold.

[The Senate, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate is not accountable because senators are not elected.

Eighty-four percent of British Columbians want elected senators. Provincial representation in the Senate is unequal and we know that the Senate is not effective.

The other day the Prime Minister said that the Senate abides by its own rules and manages itself. The Prime Minister only knows who to appoint to the Senate and then he forgets how to manage them. He said he would reform the Senate, but he is not doing that.

We need to change the Senate. Otherwise its downward slide will continue. The Prime Minister is letting the Senate continue its downward slide. Shame on the Prime Minister for talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Shame on the government for doing nothing to reform the Senate. Shame on the Liberals for allowing the Senate to continue its downward slide.

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion P-24 to be called.

Motion No. P-24

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition concerning the bombing of Air-India 182 in 1995.

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

May I ask the unanimous consent of the House to briefly revert to Routine Proceedings and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.

[Reform Party Of Canada, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the Reform Party of Canada begins its second year as Her Majesty's loyal official opposition. We will continue to hold the Liberals accountable for their mismanagement. The Liberals use closure to debate and prevent free votes. Many MPs only look through the lens of political stripes, not the lens of issues. Partisan politics is applied to compensation for hep C victims, Senate reform, rebalancing Confederation, the CPP and the YOA.

Debate is about sharing and listening to different viewpoints. Yet the official opposition has to regularly call for quorum forcing Liberal members to participate in debate.

Canadians are getting value for money from Reform MPs because our performance springs from true grassroots democracy as demonstrated at our London assembly.

Let us work together and make Canada a better place.

[National Head Start Program, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in favour of Motion No. 261 as proposed by my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: ( a ) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; ( b ) ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and ( c ) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000.

We in the official opposition are pleased that the motion is receiving so much support in the House.

The motion clearly states that the federal government should develop a national head start program along with its provincial counterparts. This would be a comprehensive program for all Canadian children in their first eight years of their life.

As a member of parliament I have divided my mandate into four components of society which I would like to focus on. They are: youth, senior citizens, families and women. I find this helpful in my work because, for example, I find that I learn a great deal about youth when I meet with students at schools.

We should provide a good start in life for our children. Our federal government tries to help all children through our health and education programs. The motion simply asks the federal government to concentrate on our children in the first eight years of their life, which is a critical stage in a child's development.

We know that inadequate attention and nurturing for our youngsters can often lead to subsequent developmental difficulties. We know that with a poor start the life of a child is at risk of winding up on the wrong side of the law. Our federal government should be interested in any opportunities that result in successful crime prevention. We spend more money dealing with criminals than on early detection and prevention of crime. The dollars spent on providing a good head start for our children will result in the saving of many dollars in the future that would have been spent dealing with anti-social and criminal behaviour.

The government has already implemented head start programs for our aboriginal communities. They have been primarily limited to reserves, but most aboriginal people living off reserve and non-aboriginal people also need this kind of program. We should treat all Canadians equally.

We have head start programs for our aboriginal children. Why are head start programs not available to other children who are not living on reserve?

This motion proposes that the government explore models based on the Perry Preschool Program, among others.

This government's National Crime Prevention Council has been very of supportive a national head start program. On page 2 of the executive summary of its 1996 report it states:

There is ample evidence that well-designed social development programs can prevent crime and be cost-effective. Rigorous evaluations, mainly American, show that crime prevention through social development pays handsome dividends.

In almost 30 years of participant follow-up the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan has been shown to be responsible for very significantly reducing juvenile and adult crime.

The Secretary of State for Children and Youth has already spoken to this motion on behalf of the Liberals. She acknowledges the success of the aboriginal head start program and pointed out that funding had doubled due to its benefits.

We need to expand our efforts to include the protection of all children and to assist needy parents to properly nurture and care for our country's children.

The motion we are debating should be supported by all members of this House, but especially by Liberals. The motion is not in conflict with the comments made by the secretary of state.

It is known that healthy babies become healthy children. Hospitals could screen all new mothers to identify babies and families who may need extra support and services.

Supporting this motion would pave the way for providing high risk families with the parenting help needed to avoid child abuse and neglect.

The official opposition justice critic spoke on this motion during its second hour of debate. He recounted that during the justice committee's recent 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act the committee travelled across the country. It listened to witnesses. It heard experts, professionals and lay people who have an interest in the whole area of the development of youth and the prevention of youth crime. During the hearings experts told the committee that teachers could detect aberrant and over-aggressive behaviour in children as early as grades one, two and three.

The Bloc fears that the motion encroaches into the area of provincial jurisdiction. As such, it has tied this motion into the Canadian unity debate. That is unfortunate.

In Quebec the justice committee found programs that are far ahead of some of the other provinces. That province has done an excellent job. There are programs in Quebec that ought to be looked at and perhaps emulated by other provinces if they have a real concern about dealing with early detection and preventive programs.

This brings us to the heart of the role of our federal government. Far from being threatened, Quebec should be anxious to share its technology and some of its successful programs with the rest of the country. The Bloc members should also support this motion.

Our federal government should pursue this motion and pool our resources to reduce the cost of implementation. Ideas and successes could be shared. National standards would ensure that children from all parts of this country receive the necessary assistance and protection in a national head start program.

Back in August 1996 the former minister of justice commented about the justice system and how the harm has already been done by the time people come before the courts. He stated “We must do more than deal with the symptoms of the problem. We must go to the source”. Programs, as proposed by this motion, go to the source.

In 1996 the Child Welfare League of Canada argued the need to create a comprehensive and permanent universal program across Canada to address funding for early intervention measures to assist our children.

I would like to give an example. Sandor Nyerges was a constituent of mine and a veteran of the two great wars. He was deaf, mute, 80 years old and lived alone. He became the victim of a ferocious attack by an assailant who has a long record as a young offender. My constituent died in the hospital from that attack. The alleged assailant was apparently intoxicated, a youth, possibly on drugs.

The constituents of Surrey Central and I are furious. In Surrey and elsewhere we hear about such crimes day after day. We have had another murder in Surrey, a caretaker at the Sikh temple, another victim of youth.

If our federal government had been acting in a timely fashion in the direction of the motion we are debating today, maybe Sandor and many other Canadians might not have been assaulted or murdered.

At the Princess Margaret Senior Secondary School in Surrey in March 1998 I met with students shortly after Sandor died. During my meeting with these students they raised the issue of crime as a major concern.

This is just another example of how the government continues to put the rights of the accused first and the safety of Canadians second. The government does not have a national head start program.

In closing I would like to say that Canadians are suffering. We want safer streets and safer communities. We want the Liberal government to respond to society's justice needs. That is why we should all support Motion No. 261.

[Points Of Order, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if these are irresponsible comments.

Why will you not allow—

[Cida, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the foreign affairs committee, in the presence of the minister responsible for CIDA, some Liberal backbenchers said that if B.C. businesses want to get CIDA contracts they should move their businesses to Ontario.

Will the minister publicly denounce these irresponsible comments?

[Emergency Preparedness Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, May 4 to May 10 is Emergency Preparedness Week. The government should use this week to learn about emergency preparedness but the Liberal government never learns. It believes more in Murphy's Law than in preparing for emergencies.

The Liberals did not learn from the Manitoba floods. The Liberals did not learn from the ice storm. They are not learning now from the Alberta fires.

How are the Liberals preparing for the earthquake that will hit B.C. in the future? They closed CFB Chilliwack and have left B.C. without emergency preparedness.

Emergency preparedness is about responding to a crisis. Canadians have seen the poor response by the government to the tainted blood crisis.

On behalf of British Columbians, I give this government fair warning that now is the time to prepare.

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-19 which is an act to amend part I of the Canada Labour Code.

We see workers in industry. It is very important for us to look carefully into the industrial relations that are governing the businesses in this country. Many workers feel intimidated and that their rights are not the way they should be.

Whatever we do here in this Chamber should protect the rights of the majority, not the few in society. In the labour force I believe that most of the workers believe that their rights should be preserved. That can be done when they are given some protection such as with secret ballots. If they are not voting by secret ballot, there could be intimidation, there could be some other dangers. Their rights will not be preserved to the extent they should be.

I will be opposing this part of the bill because it does not give freedom to the workers. It does not create the necessary balance which we want in industry.

Some provisions of the bill do not give workers the right to express what they want to express. To create a balance between the majority and a few of the workers, we should give them the freedom to express their views which can only be done by secret ballot.

I do have some experience in talking to workers who belong to unions in my constituency. I am told that some members of the unions are not satisfied with the way they are allowed to express their thoughts, their will.

I say in closing that with Bill C-19, industrial relations are important and the rules to govern workers are very important. Whatever we do in this Chamber we should do to benefit the majority of the people in Canada. To respect the wishes of the majority we should allow the workers to express their wishes by secret ballot.