Gurmant Grewal

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to state our view with respect to the Canadian flag flap caused by the antics of certain members in the House.

Today my constituents and I will be proud to vote yes to displaying the Canadian flag on the desks of the members.

We have other more important issues that we could be dealing with, but unfortunately we are being forced to debate this issue in the House today.

I would have thought it was understood that it is the right of every Canadian to have, to hold and to wear the Canadian flag in Canada. Of all the places on earth it is inconceivable and hard to imagine that Canadians could be prohibited from displaying even a small Canadian flag in the House of Commons.

Where else can we display our flag? Tomorrow someone could stand and ask me not to wear a Canadian flag pin. Is there a more sacred place to display our flag than in our own national legislature? In the highest law making body of our country we cannot have a flag on our desks. This is unbelievable.

When I embraced Canadian citizenship I assumed that I was given a bundle of rights. The first thing I did after my swearing in as a Canadian citizen was to sing our national anthem. I then carried home a Canadian flag which I respectfully put on my desk in my home office.

I am very proud of our flag like all other Canadians who have called my office in the last few days. I have a Canadian flag on my desk in my offices, yet today I am defending the right to place a Canadian flag on this desk, my constituents' desk in the House of Commons. This is unbelievable.

This is the most respected House and the highest court in the land. I strongly believe and join with my colleagues in their belief that we should respect decorum in the House. Every Canadian's voice is roaring without fear or intimidation in the House. Ridiculous heckling is allowed in the House and sometimes it is disrespectful.

What some Canadians would say are treasonous comments. Disrespect for our national symbols is allowed in the House. However, Canadians have a problem when our national symbol, the flag of this great country, is considered offensive in the House. I feel intimidated that my right to display the Canadian flag is being denied today.

It seems to me and my constituents that this weak government has been blackmailed by those who are bent upon tearing the country apart. It seems as if the government has been scared by the separatists. The Liberals are running like scared cats. They have spent $25 million of the taxpayers' money to give away Canadian flags so that our flag would have an increased presence in our country.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the number of flags around your chair has doubled since 1992 and now the presence of the Canadian flag is being decreased in the House. The government has given me large quantities of Canadian flags and Canadian flag pins to take to my constituency and present to my constituents.

What answer should I give to someone who may ask me where our flag can and cannot be displayed? This is not a flag waving issue today as stated by some members and as reported in the news. The issue is not that I must put a flag on my desk, but the issue is why I should be prohibited from putting a flag on my desk. It is about the infringement of my rights, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Just because someone feels offended by the displaying of the Canadian flag in the House, I feel more offended when I am prohibited from honourably displaying my country's flag.

The constituents of Surrey Central and I want the record to be very clear that this problem was not initiated by the Reform Party. Let me remind the House and Canadians that the flag we are debating today was distributed and displayed by Liberal members to all members in the House. Members from all the parties except the Bloc participated in singing the national anthem on the day when the issue arose. If props are not allowed, why were they distributed in the first place in the House? Even on the day the budget was tabled some Liberal MPs displayed a big flag in that corner of the House. Why were they not ruled out of order?

It is not the Reform Party that originated this issue. The official opposition is simply fighting a forceful denial of the right to exhibit the flag on our desks in the House because of a fear of the separatists.

It is not an issue between the Reform Party and other parties. It is an issue of calling a spade a spade and having the right to fight, to defend our country's flag, to defend the integrity of our great country and to respect our national symbols.

The issue separates those who are afraid from those who do not like the Canadian flag. Those who are afraid to defend our Canadian flag are those who are afraid of offending anyone in defence of our flag. Those are the members of the Liberal Party and other parties in the House. They wanted to unnecessarily drag the issue on and bury it in a committee. They have made the issue a political football. It is shameful.

They fail to recognize the consequences of their cowardliness in Canadian history. They are not only leaving behind high debt and high taxes for future generations, but today they are leaving behind a legacy of a shameful story in our history. What else can we expect from the government?

Everything the government does raises suspicion. The House and the government voted against my motion asking the government to call a Canadian a Canadian and discourage the concept of hyphenated Canadianism. That motion could have been uniting and integrating Canadians rather than segregating them further. It could have helped restore national pride. Instead, the Liberals do not want Canadians to be encouraged to call ourselves proud Canadians. They do not foster and develop Canadian culture. Now they allow our right to sing the national anthem and the right to display our flag to be attacked.

On the weekend my 13 year old son, Livjot, asked me what country all members of Parliament represent in the House of Commons. I said “Canada of course”. He asked if Quebec was a country. I said “no”. Then he asked why there was a problem about the Canadian flag in the Canadian parliament. I was ashamed. I could not answer.

To conclude, a vote against the Canadian flag being displayed by an elected and sworn Canadian is like a vote against motherhood. The flag flap has gone on long enough and certainly should not be decided by backroom negotiations but by Canadians through their MPs in the House.

On behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I will vote in support of today's official opposition motion and I will be proud to have the Canadian flag displayed on our desks in the House of Commons. I urge hon. members in the House to put the issue to rest and focus on more important issues. Let us have a free vote on the matter in the House.

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the point of view of the member from the government side. I am prepared to support Bill C-20 as long as this act achieves its intended objectives to modernize and amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related changes in other acts.

I have two brief questions for the member. One is about telemarketing. We know that Air Canada is tripling its call centres in Canada, in particular in Winnipeg. It is tripling its staff in the Winnipeg call centre. Banks, credit unions and other financial unions are vigorously promoting and pursuing the operation of call centres across the country.

Some businesses operate by selling lottery tickets to senior citizens normally in Canada and abroad, Lotto 649 and so on. From time to time they sell emotions to seniors. It is gambling sold over the telephone. Can the member tell the House if this bill will restrict selling gambling or pressure selling over the telephone?

We all receive a certain type of unsolicited mail which we define as junk mail. We sometimes receive car keys with the message that we have won an automobile. Sometimes we see nicely printed certificates that indicate we have won millions of dollars. People usually perceive these as scams. Can the member tell the House if these things are being taken care of in this bill? As a member of the government side could he throw some light on that? Can we restrict these types of scams?

[Competition Act, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the NDP member.

As my colleagues have already mentioned, the Reform Party always supports vigorous measures to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace such as promoting competition or competitive pricing, strengthening vigorously and enforcing competition in the market.

I would ask the member to throw some light on the duopoly and monopoly situation in certain areas in the market. He said he likes to support the bill, as I am doing. I would like him to comment on certain monopolistic and duplistic situations in the market.

[Young Offenders, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to mourn the death of Sandor Nyerges, a veteran of the two world wars.

He was deaf, mute, 80 years old and lived alone. My constituent was left with the loss of his eyesight, hundreds of stitches in his head and body, a broken nose and he suffered two heart attacks following a beating. He was a victim of a ferocious beating that led to his death. The alleged assailant has a long record as a young offender.

We have urged this Liberal government since 1993 to get tough on crime. The Liberals are dragging their feet and sitting on their hands while seniors remain targets of violence day after day after day.

My constituents and I are furious. When will the Liberal's defend and protect our citizens? When will the Liberal's stand up for Canadians? Why was this freedom fighter not free from crime? Fix the Young Offenders Act.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member during this debate, but a false statement has been made in the House which damages my personal character and personality. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement. He alleged that I sought the nomination for another party, which I did not do.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw the false statement he made in the House that I ran for nomination for another political party. I ran only for one party and that is the Reform Party. I believe in the principles of the Reform Party. I ask the member to withdraw the false statement he just made.

I would like to answer his question. His facts are not right because he never bothers to read the facts. The Canada Foundation for Innovation was formed in April 1997. The payment was made to the foundation on July 31, 1997. The books of the government closed on March 31. The $800 million is a commitment, not a liability. The government cannot put commitments on the books. Liabilities have to be put on the books. If the people who run private businesses did that they would be thrown into jail.

I would ask the member to check his facts before he speaks in the House. I would also ask him to withdraw—

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the question by the hon. member suggests that he is out of touch with the books. He is out of touch with Canadians. He is out of touch with his constituents who will tell him that Canada is paying 56% more tax than the average of the G-7 countries. The average Canadian is paying 23% more tax than the average of all OECD countries.

The hon. member on the other side should spend some time looking at the auditor general's report. He will find the same facts and figures I am speaking about in that report. They will show that the member is out of touch. He should read those books and tell the finance minister what the auditor general is saying.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to voice our views on the budget. Six provinces already have balanced budget legislation in place but this government does not. Balanced budgets should be mandatory for every government by legislation.

It is not the pen of the finance minister filled with the black ink given to him by the Prime Minister but the Canadian taxpayers who have made the balanced budget. Seventy per cent of the deficit was eliminated by the increase in tax revenues. Canadians now pay 56% more tax than the average of the G-7 countries and 23% more tax than the average of the OECD countries.

Since it took office, this government has increased taxes 37 times and has squeezed every dollar from the taxpayers. It has squeezed $48 billion worth of revenue from taxpayers and has added $83 billion to the huge debt that now stands at $583 billion. This has been accumulated by the mismanagement and lack of vision of this Liberal government and previous Tory governments one after the other.

On average Canadian families pay $6,000 per year just to pay the interest payment of $45 billion on the debt. A third of each dollar goes to service the debt. A newborn baby is not assured of good health care, education, a job or a pension. That newborn baby is assured of one thing, a $20,000 debt. That is shameful in this country.

This government has made no real effort to give tax relief to taxpayers or to lay out a plan to pay the huge debt. It is this debt and the high tax rate that discourage domestic and foreign investment in Canada. The debt and the high tax rate stagnate job creation in Canada. The debt and tax rate hinder economic growth in Canada. The debt and the high tax rate cause the brain drain in Canada.

Budget day was a martyrdom day for this country. The Liberal finance minister has sacrificed the future prosperity of Canadian taxpayers. He has made martyrs out of Canadian taxpayers. If a budget is balanced by increasing tax revenue alone, it could have been done 25 years ago. Where was this Prime Minister who was then finance minister in the Liberal government? Where was that bottle of black ink 25 years ago if he wanted to balance the budget? It has not reduced federal spending at all. It has not pursued the elimination of waste in the government. This government has all kinds of credit cards and cheque books even for future generations and is issuing one cheque after the other.

In this budget the government has already announced 17 new spending initiatives worth $11 billion. This shows that the government completely lacks vision and accountability.

The other day the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues gave many examples of irresponsible spending by this government. Let me turn for a minute to my critic role. This budget adds $90 million to foreign aid this year and $50 million to it next year, while foreign aid donated by other countries around the world has decreased. The private sector investment is increasing.

By throwing out more money, this government is rewarding the CIDA minister for her failures, inefficiencies and mismanagement. The CIDA minister has said before the committee on foreign affairs and international trade “the cuts in the budget have made us work smarter”. What a funny quote. Why could her ministry not work smarter before the cuts were made?

On the other side, on page 29 of red book II it promised that 50% of a surplus would be used to reduce the debt and the other 50% would be used to address social and economic needs through program expenditures. But this government, like its GST promise, its jobs, jobs, jobs promise, and like 136 other promises, has again betrayed the trust of Canadians. We know that Canadians will not forget this great betrayal by this government.

Two economists from the major banks are saying that the government is understating its surplus by $5 billion to $6 billion this year and $9 billion to $10 billion next year. This government should not play political football with the future of Canadians.

I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We have been very disappointed with what we have learned about the political mismanagement by the Liberals of federal government affairs which were brought, one after the other, before the committee. According to the Auditor General of Canada, the Liberals have overstated the 1996-97 federal deficit by $800 million. How? It has paid the $800 million to a dummy organization which did not even exist in that fiscal year. What a shame. That $800 million was paid to a company that did not even exist in that fiscal year.

I have another example. The auditor general insists that the Liberals eliminate their $20 billion gap between their estimates and the actual liabilities of the federal government's employee pensions. The auditor general made it very clear that the $20 billion figure was based on a political decision and not on an accounting decision. The Liberals are using creative accounting practices, something no small or medium size business could ever use.

The auditor general has scolded the Liberals for not following the generally accepted accounting principles or the public sector accounting auditing board guidelines. If it is not a cooking of the books what is it? They should not follow the laws of the cooks but the laws of the books.

The government should be credible, honest, clear, straightforward and accountable to Canadians. It must maintain transparent accounts. This is not leadership by example. How can Canadians trust this finance minister regarding what he calls a balanced budget? Why does this minister use a surplus to play politics with?

Rather than caring about the future of Canadians, I think this budget looks like a shell game. Canadians cannot be fooled by this shell game.

A few years ago in Canada on average one parent used to work and the other parent took care of the children and the family at home. Nowadays and for some time both parents work and the average family makes less money. Parents get less time to spend with their children.

When those children go to school they have to struggle to get quality education with the competition and it being so expensive. They go to schools which are famous for drugs, gangs and crime. When they graduate they have to struggle to get jobs. There is 18% unemployment rate for youth. When they get jobs they go on the same vicious cycle of paying taxes and in the end when the time comes for retirement the situation is terrible. There may be no money left for their pension.

The system is unfair and the government lacks accountability. The government lacks vision. Every corner of our lives is mismanaged by big government. It may be the Young Offenders Act. It may be victim rights. It may be the multilateral agreement on investment. Whatever we talk about, the government is famous for mismanagement.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been negotiating this agreement for at least two years.

Before the election we saw red book II, in which we did not see any mention of MAI. We heard no mention about MAI in the throne speech and I was surprised when I saw this report on multilateral agreement on investment marked confidential. This report would not be in my hands if it was not leaked to us.

Why was this government negotiating in confidence without letting Canadians know what the benefits or costs to Canadians are? Why was this government afraid to have a public discussion on this issue? Why was this government afraid of calling a public debate on this issue? Why was the government afraid of having an informed discussion on this issue?

We are asking a simple thing. We want public discussion on this issue. We want debate in the House. Can this member inform us why he is afraid of having a discussion in this House?

[Iraq, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister be so far out of the loop that he does not have any information? Will he find out about the deal from CNN? Whom does this minister have to check with before he can decide whether or not the deal is acceptable to Canadians?