Gurmant Grewal

[Canadians, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since the employment of dirty tactics in the debate, I was not given time to close my debate and give answers to some of the questions raised in the debate.

I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek unanimous consent on the motion and I implore the House to call for a recorded vote on motion 24.

[Canadians, November 26th, 1997]

moved:

That a legislative committee of this House be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)( b ), to prevent the reference to and designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form, based on race, religion, colour or place of origin.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and on behalf of the silent majority in Canada I am pleased to introduce my private member's Motion No. 24 calling for the introduction of legislation which would prevent the reference and designation of any Canadian or group of Canadians in a hyphenated form based on race, religion, colour or place of origin.

I have many reasons and experiences personally in my life which have compelled me to introduce Motion No. 24 concerning hyphenated Canadians, but let me first clear the air. This motion is non-partisan and is put forward with the best interests in mind for the people and the future of our beloved country of Canada.

Canada is a country of immigrants. I respect the diversity of Canada and its cultural mosaic. Our diversity is our asset, not a liability. We do not oppose the multicultural fact of Canada but taxpayer funded official multiculturalism as a Government of Canada objective, that is the commercialization of multiculturalism.

It is time to review our 25 year old expensive and divisive multicultural policy. It needs not only a tune-up but an overhaul. Let us not look 25 years backward. There is no use crying over spilt milk. Let us look beyond our noses. Let us look to the future and believe in the reality and changing dynamics of Canada. Emphasis should be on enhancing the equality of Canadians.

Most people view themselves as Canadians, yet the government has been collecting information about their ancestral origins and referring to them accordingly. The census is becoming more and more precarious. In the 1991 census Stats Canada asked the question “to which ethnic or cultural group did your ancestors belong?” It listed 15 ethnic or cultural groups as choices but not Canadian as a group.

The current ministry of multiculturalism has three goals: fostering Canadian identity and belonging, assisting with integration, and creating social justice by eliminating the barriers to equality. None of these goals can be achieved under the present federal multiculturalism policy by encouraging hyphenation of Canadians.

Hyphenation of Canadians weakens and dilutes the Canadian identity and belonging. Hyphenation inhibits integration and rather assists segregation of our population. Hyphenation of Canadians fosters barriers to equality rather than eliminating those barriers. Hyphenation does more harm than good. In fact, we see that the government is going in a completely opposite direction, 180° from the objective we want to achieve.

Rather than uniting Canada and sustaining our multicultural reality, we are going completely in the opposite direction on this. The current policy is promoting diversity at the expense of unity and equality. As parliamentarians it is our obligation to ensure our laws and policies achieve the desired outcome.

We have many differences among all of us. Two individuals are different unless they are identical twins or perhaps if they are cloned. A person could be, for example, a woman and at the same time a mother. She could be fat, short, with a particular ethnicity, language, colour, religion, et cetera. That is okay. We respect that.

Like everyone else, I am equally proud of my ethnicity, my culture and my religion. Like everyone else, I have chosen Canada as my home. This is the future of my children and my family. This is where our hopes and opportunities are and I am proud of that, like everyone else. Canada has been generous to me and my family. I and my family are proud to hold a Canadian passport. Like everyone else, I am proud to be a Canadian. But the hyphen still interferes with my pride.

This government encourages new Canadians to be called something like Indo Canadians, Chinese Canadians, Italian Canadians, not just Canadians.

The other day on TV the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women said she is proud to be a Trinidad Canadian. She is a Canadian government minister. When will she call herself a proud Canadian? When will she call a Canadian a Canadian? When will she have a Canada first attitude? Those are the questions many Canadians are asking. But just as in our question period in the House, they do not get answers.

It is time to define Canadian culture for the 21st century. During this century we have seen enough evidence in many African and Middle Eastern countries of the consequences of dividing populations based on ethnicity, race, religion or tribe. It is never too late. We can still learn lessons to keep us united and strong, rather than divided and segregated, particularly at a time when we are working hard to heal fractious wounds and to keep Canada united.

Hyphenation and multicultural policies promote too much diversity at the expense of unity and equality. Reminding us of our different origins is less useful in building a unified country than emphasizing the things we have in common.

We have too many differences based on race, religion, culture, ethnicity, et cetera, but we have only one common similarity, we are all Canadians.

The children in our schools have differences, but we call them students. The men and women in the army have differences, but we call them soldiers. Citizens in our country have differences, but why should we not call ourselves Canadians? In fact, the definition of multiculturalism should be a single society united by shared laws, values, future aspirations and responsibilities.

Let individuals and groups have full freedom to promote their own culture, their own religions, heritage, et cetera. If the truth be told, current multiculturalism is actually multifacialism. Hyphenation brands us like commodities, but we are all equal human beings. It creates different tiers of Canadians.

Are there some Canadians who are more Canadian than others? Every Canadian has the right to be 100% Canadian and not a sub-Canadian.

How foolish it sounds when someone says even Canadians voted for Chinese Canadians or Indo Canadians or Italian Canadians.

This government's practices and policies unnecessarily fuel division, frictions, jealousies and prevent and discourage integration of various communities and, in fact, are a precursor to discrimination.

Canadians continue to search with increasing urgency for ways to cross lines of colour, culture and religion. Yet the more we criss-cross these lines which establish our identity, the more it becomes evident that the very lines that define us also confine us.

What can we do? Surrendering a hyphen is one thing. That tiny little splash of ink called a hyphen unites words but acts as a wedge to distance words and keep them apart. The best way to draw a line is simply to withdraw that line. Sooner or later we have to get rid of the stigma of hyphenated Canadianism, otherwise our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will continue to be identified with prefixes like Indo, Chinese, Italian, French, English and even Trinidad when they are described as Canadians. Canadians in other countries are not called Canado Indian. They are not called Canado Chinese, Canado French or Canado Italian.

How about true origins in history? Many may be Aryan before being Chinese or Indian. Should we call them Aryan Chinese Canadians? How about those with mixed ethnicity like Ukranian Polish French Italian Canadian? What should we call them? It is possible in our country to have brothers and sisters in one family who could have been born in Trinidad, India and Canada, but they would still be a family of Canadians. It is as simple as that.

The essence of the Canadian bill of rights and the charter of rights and freedoms is to uphold every individual as equal before and under the law and free from discrimination. We should sensitize Canadians to each other and stress not the differences that divide us but the similarities that unite us.

Hyphenation and promotion of cultural diversity by government encourages ethnic differences that lead immigrants to adopt a psychology of separation from mainstream culture. It isolates ethnic racial groups in distinct enclaves by fostering an inward focus mentality that drives a wedge between Canadian of different backgrounds. Let us not create multicultural tensions or invoke jealousies but foster an atmosphere of harmony and love.

Motion No. 24 has raised more than just a few eyebrows. It has generated an outpouring of support from across Canada to my office. From the feedback I have received I know I am not alone. There are many more Canadians across this great land who feel the same way. One Canadian even sent me a five dollar bill to have a drink in his name.

My office has received many telephone calls, letters and e-mail messages. People have even stopped me on the street to tell me of their support of my efforts to draw attention to those problems caused by the use of hyphenation.

I have so many quotes to share but time does not permit me. I wanted to quote from about 60 letters.

We must all work together to pursue equality and unity but it is vital that government lead the way. It will certainly bridge the gap. It will be a step forward toward the elimination of racial barriers. Let us not be partisan on this significant issue. Let us embrace what is common among all of us. Let us promote, encourage and put Canada first. Let us put our effort into keeping Canada not only united but together and strong. Let us not create multicultural tensions or invoke jealousy but foster an atmosphere of harmony and love. Let us all be 100% Canadians and not sub-Canadians. Let us start thinking about and defining Canadian culture.

In all honesty, I hoped to bridge the political divide and gain the consensus from all sides of this House to address what I and many other Canadians believe to be a problem, including many members from various parties whom I talked to and including the lonely independent member of this House.

Let us work together, recognize the merit of motion 24. This is what the silent Canadian majority want. Motion 24, if implemented by the government, will certainly bridge the gap. It will be a step forward toward eliminating racial barriers. It is everyone's responsibility to find solutions, but it is important that the government lead the way.

Let us do what is in the best interests of all Canadians and Canada. I urge all the hon. members, including you Mr. Speaker, not to look to your political stripes but to look into your own heart and stand up united in support of motion 24.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I are proud to support the passage of the bill by the House. It was an honour to have the opportunity to speak in support of it.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

The good people of Surrey Central are very happy to have me speak on their behalf in support of this legislation to implement the convention on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and their destruction.

My constituents and I would like to salute and pay special tribute to my Reform Party colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who not only attended the convention at Oslo, but who has many years experience working as a medical doctor in the mine infested area of Mozambique. In fact, in 1995 and 1996 he was the Reform member of Parliament who introduced a private members' bill calling for an international ban on anti-personnel mines, but the government refused to make the bill votable.

If that bill had been declared votable, the treaty could have been signed much earlier, perhaps over two years earlier, and we could have saved many lives around the world.

On this rare occasion the Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs said he would support the private members' motion. A Liberal minister actually stating his support of an opposition member's private members' bill was important because it boosted the spirit of the activists and non-government organizations who were already concerned and fighting to have these destructive weapons eliminated.

The new Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs also supported the anti-personnel land mines initiative. Canada began pursuing the matter with other countries in the world, hoping to get a consensus on an international ban.

In October 1996 at the International Strategy Conference, Canada challenged the international community to sign a treaty to ban the production, use, stockpile and export of land mines, and so began the Ottawa process.

The international non-government organization community has always argued that a ban on land mines is necessary because the mines actually violate international human rights and international law by killing or maiming over 20,000 civilians per year.

A draft treaty was produced in Oslo, Norway, in September 1997. Included in this treaty was the banning of the use, production, stockpiling and trade of anti-personnel mines, but it also included assistance for de-mining and for the victims. So far over 120 countries have indicated that they will sign the Oslo treaty. Other nations are seriously considering signing the Oslo treaty. Next month there will be a formal signing ceremony in Ottawa.

The treaty is supported by the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact there is ample military evidence to support the ban of anti-personnel mines.

The Oslo treaty is intended to be a collective international disarmament treaty. The bill we are debating today is the product of the Oslo draft treaty. Bill C-22 has many significant humanitarian elements that will not only ban countries from producing land mines but will ban countries from using and trading them.

Canada's exemptions to this treaty will allow us to import, export and possess land mines only for military training, mine clearing and destruction. Peace officers and RCMP officers will also have the authority to possess and transport land mines in the course of their duties to diffuse them.

In the event a country falls under the suspicion of violating the treaty, fact finders will be sent by the international community and will have powers to search and seize with or without a warrant. Private homes can be inspected with a warrant. Warrants are not required to search military bases and/or warehousing facilities.

The bill has 14 sections. I would briefly like to describe a few of the sections which are important.

There are prohibitions as we know. Under the bill it is illegal to place a mine under, on or near the ground or any surface area. It is also illegal to develop, to produce or to stockpile mines directly or indirectly except for training purposes, to dismantle, or for display in museums. It is also illegal to import or export anti-personnel mines.

There is a destruction of mines section. Individuals who are in possession of anti-personnel mines must deliver them to specific locations for immediate destruction with the exception of the military, RCMP or those authorized by the minister to render the mines useless.

There are inspection rules. In the event that a country is accused of violating this treaty, the foreign minister of that country must provide to members of the United Nations fact finding team a certificate that will allow members of the mission to inspect areas where there is suspicion of mines, that is military bases or industrial warehouses. This power is only extended to commercial dwellings. They cannot enter into private dwellings unless the owner allows them.

Finally there is an enforcement section. This allows the opportunity for enforcement officers to determine fines and convictions. Summary convictions range from a fine of $5,000, jail time of up to 18 months, or both. Convictions on indictment range from a fine of $500,000 or imprisonment for a term no longer than five years, or both.

The United States and China have refused to be signatories to this treaty. However they have both implemented many significant aspects of the treaty such as the destruction of their stockpiles of mines. Also they have not exported mines for some years. We hope that in times to come China and the United States will sign the treaty.

The U.S.A. has done more than any other country in terms of committing more money to de-mining. It has made sure that the anti-tank weapons are not anti-personnel any more. It has destroyed a record number of mines already. The U.S. was the first nation to ask the United Nations to call for a ban on anti-personnel mines. The U.S. expects to lead in the role of peacekeeper in many parts of the world and expects to be accommodated, but in Oslo the nations did not agree. We know that last week the U.S. lost a plane and its crew off the coast of Africa while en route to de-mining activities in Africa.

Countries in war zones such as Bosnia, Turkey, middle eastern countries, India and Pakistan have not signed on either. Even though these nations have not become signatories, the fact that a treaty with teeth has been produced is more successful than a treaty that is agreed to by everyone but has enough loopholes to make it worthless.

With respect to the bill in its current form one of the issues that causes concern is the lack of specifics concerning who will be assigned by the minister to be the watch dog over the destruction of any mines and the enforcement of the law within Canada.

Another issue is the request for assistance. A commitment for assistance with no fixed moneys is stated in the treaty. This is assistance that can be given where appropriate and affordable. The government should ensure that whatever aid is given through assistance is done in the most cost effective fashion. This is a serious issue. It is important for the bill to be passed by parliament as soon as possible.

Let us imagine the civilian human aspect for a moment. History shows that mines do not stop armies but stop people's lives completely. In certain villages mines are all around in the fields, meadows and forests. The schools are covered with posters asking kids to think mines. The vocabulary of those school children includes war, mines, danger, fear, kill, blood and similar words. They ask children not to touch the mines because they are toys of war.

They are being told not to look at the beautiful sky or the yellow moon or count stars because in a split second it can become bloody. It takes only one wrong step, so they should lower their heads because their enemy is in the earth.

There is something worse than a war. They have to survive the peace. Families are familiar with crisis and lack of money. Even the children have to work to support the families in those countries. The forgotten mines take away their young dreams in a split second. The war is still in their hearts, souls and memory. There are people out there with one leg of their trousers hanging empty. There is no more hissing sound of shells or sirens but a sudden sound of detonation. Nobody knows how to handle them. To conclude—

[British Columbia, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberals have failed to address B.C.'s concerns.

The Liberals have their own agenda for APEC. It is not human rights, it is not job creation, it is not making BC the eighth tiger of the Pacific Rim. It is a failed attempt to heal the wounds. Real job creators for B.C., fish, wood and environmental products, have not made APEC's to do list.

The Liberals have failed to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty with the U.S. It has turned off Pacific lighthouses. It has ripped the heart out of the Pacific coast guard. It has even closed CFB Chilliwack and left B.C. without emergency preparedness.

The Liberals have cut out the voice of British Columbians by excluding 25 BC MPs from participation at APEC. The Liberals would have preferred to have hosted APEC in Toronto or Montreal.

The Liberals are fanning the fires of B.C. alienation with $65 million. They are not creating jobs for B.C. British Columbians are too smart to be fooled by Liberals.

[Cida, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister in charge of CIDA is mismanaging her department. She is using budget cuts to absolve herself of her responsibility to ensure accountability at CIDA.

Now more than ever CIDA needs the Aid Effectiveness Advisory Committee that it asked for in 1994 to manage CIDA budget cuts. If she is planning to give her senior officials the tools they need to ensure accountability at CIDA, why did she refuse to establish this committee?

[Human Rights, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the Vancouver APEC summit the government is hosting among others leaders from Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and China. Canadians want the Minister of Foreign Affairs to loudly and publicly raise our concerns about human right abuses with these countries, not behind close doors but loudly and publicly.

While in opposition this minister was talking the talk. Now is the time. Will he walk the walk?

[Petitions, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and other regions of British Columbia.

The petition concerns Yasmine Reddy, a Canadian citizen who was abducted from Canada by her mother, Nadia Reddy, on February 16, 1997 and remains a hostage trapped in Amman, Jordan.

This petition is signed by 83 persons and calls on the federal government to act to have Yasmine Reddy safely and promptly returned to Canada and to ask the King of Jordan to issue a royal decree to repatriate Yasmine Asha Christine Reddy back to Canada.

[Canadian International Development Agency, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. secretary does not know that. The fact is the committee has not yet been established so that the government may continue taking political advantage of CIDA.

CIDA has about 130 auditors from 49 countries trained by Canadian taxpayer dollars. CIDA has never used them except once. Guess what, the aid money was not used for the intended purpose.

CIDA's accountability, transparency, reputation and credibility are in question.

Why does the minister refuse to use those auditors who are trained in Canada?

[Canadian International Development Agency, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for three years CIDA has asked the government to establish an aid effectiveness advisory committee, a watchdog to monitor Canada's aid programs.

In response to my question last week, the government cites other priorities, including Liberal budget cuts to CIDA, as reasons not to establish a watchdog to hunt down questionable CIDA spending.

Why is the minister responsible for CIDA trying to hide behind the so-called other priorities? What is the government afraid of, the watchdog—