Nina Grewal

[Supply, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the very important subject of child care on behalf of my constituents in Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Today's motion is about recognizing that parents and not the federal government are in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their children. The government believes that Canadians want a one size fits all national child care program.

The Conservative Party supports giving parents a choice in child care. We propose giving parents the financial flexibility to make their decisions about what is best for their kids.

To say that Canada's greatest natural resource is its people is a gross understatement. I have no desire to trivialize or indulge in partisan politics with a subject that cuts across party lines. There should be no political line in the sand insofar as child care is concerned.

Children are our future. Their health, well-being and education will guarantee that future.

Governments, municipal, provincial and federal, have failed our children miserably in allowing change to overtake reality without recognizing the change and putting mechanisms in place to accommodate it.

Our society has done a complete 180 degree turn. When we were children, the husband was the breadwinner and the wife stayed at home. Wives jokingly called themselves domestic engineers and there was nothing that they could not do in the house.

In 1967 only 17% of mothers with preschool age children were employed outside the home. Today that number is approaching 80%.

By preference or for financial necessity, both parents have gone out into the labour force. For some it is fulfilling the desire for a second car in the driveway, a bigger house, winter or summer vacations or finding the cash for university tuition for their children.

For others it is a matter of needing the extra income to provide for the very basic necessities of life; food, clothing and shelter. The reality of life in North America, not just in Canada, is that there is a need for child care or day care.

I am new to Parliament and I often wondered why throne speeches were called governor generalities. Now I know. The most current throne speech is certainly no exception. The few lines in the throne speech dealing with child care are an insult to our intelligence. The only buzz words in the two or three sentences where I see hope are “quality, universality, accessibility and development”, which could apply to a hot dog concession at a Knights of Columbus picnic. They certainly do not constitute a declaration of legislative intent.

What I want to know is what the plan will encompass, how it would be implemented and when and how much the federal government is prepared to commit in partnership with other levels of government.

I am amused to see the Minister of Social Development meeting with his provincial counterparts last Friday. The poor man had no goalie stick to lean on and he looked very uncomfortable.

The government's response to child care is inadequate and certainly not well thought out. Canadians will not be gulled or fooled by empty government promises. Or, is the government fooling itself by attempting to convey an impression of progress?

There is a line of a child's book, Alice in Wonderland , I believe, where one of the characters accuses another of confusing motion with activity. The Liberal government, and particularly its leader, has been looking confused for some time.

If we were to lump together all the boondoggles in which the government has been involved, HRDC, EI, the gun registry, ad scam, high spending diplomats and senior mandarins, and other spending abuses, we would end up with a very healthy kick-start to any national program for child care.

We in the Conservative Party recognize that the parents in communities across Canada are the best judges of which child care program is best for their children. To the contrary, the Liberals believe that universal means that a program is the same across Canada.

We believe that each defined community and each defined ethnic group should have the right to tailor their program to their needs. Parents must have that choice. Governments at the three levels have a responsibility only to provide basic universal standards of health, safety, cleanliness and qualified and safe caregivers. Beyond that, it should be left to the local communities to structure their programs to meet their specific needs.

One size child care does not fit all child care programs. One size child care does not recognize the rapidly changing mosaic of Canada.

Not far from this building there are already operational Hebrew child care facilities. In many parts of my province of British Columbia, there are communities where there are very large Indian, Chinese, Italian and German populations. Their needs will not be met by throwing their children in a melting pot because the only two languages recognized and deemed to be official languages are French and English. Not recognizing the contribution that immigration makes to Canada will defeat the basic premise and deny the wishes of the local community.

A made in Ottawa child care program is not the answer. It will not work. The program's roots must spring up in local communities and if they are all different, so be it. Parents know best, not Ottawa bureaucrats or cabinet ministers far removed from the reality of life across Canada.

We in the Conservative Party will continue to give our unqualified support to all existing child benefits and, when we form a government, one of our first priorities will be to introduce broadly based tax relief that will directly impact on parents and allow them to make the key choices of care and education for their children.

Any child care program put in place must recognize that although values must be constant, cultures and traditions differ in different parts of this great country.

The Conservative Party believes that parents deserve options. We are a multicultural society and child care should recognize that reality. Canadians want their children to be raised and educated in a way that reflects their values, cultures and traditions. The Liberal one size fits all day care system is misguided and unfair. The government is promising inadequate funding. It has limited support among the provinces. It is dealing in an area over which Ottawa has no jurisdiction.

However, most important, the Liberal proposal does not allow parents to have such a dramatic impact on the care and nurturing of their children, and that is unacceptable.

[Human Resources and Skills Development, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on record opposing a motion on the recognition of credentials. They have realized their mistake and have promised a plan but now there are delays and excuses.

First they said that it was a scheduling problem, then that there was a last minute glitch, then that there was a miscommunication between two departments and then that the participants had dropped out.

When will the Liberal government stop fooling new Canadians and stop dithering and actually put together a meaningful plan to recognize foreign credentials?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, seven times the government has cancelled its announcement of a plan to recognize foreign credentials. Doctors, engineers and accountants should not have to drive taxis to make a living.

New Canadians are not getting access to skilled occupations and their skills continue to be underutilized. It is costing our country over $2 billion annually in lost output.

It is time for the Liberals to back up their promises. When will the Prime Minister quit his dithering and provide the leadership needed to give Canada a 21st century immigration settlement policy?

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood--Port Kells to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

The bill would enable the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to establish and enforce a national do not call registry similar to ones already existing in the United States and Great Britain. Bill C-37 would also give the CRTC the power to levy substantial penalties against telemarketers and to contract with a private sector third party to operate the service.

I want to support the concept, but the bill does not get it right. The bill, consisting of a measly five pages, is extremely light on details. It tells us nothing about possible exceptions to the list, how the list would be maintained, how telemarketers would check the list, how often they must check the list, who would have access to the list or any reporting on how the list would be run. All these crucial details are left out of the regulations.

The telemarketing industry employs more than 270,000 Canadians and $16 billion worth of goods and services are sold over the telephone in Canada annually.

The industry is important to the livelihood of many of my constituents. Last year, U.S. financial giant JPMorgan Chase & Co. became the latest company to set up a call centre in Surrey when it opened a customer service centre employing over 800 in Surrey City Centre. Call centres have added substantially to Lower Mainland employment levels in the last few years.

In addition to JPMorgan, RMH Teleservices Inc. now employs 1,800 workers in North Surrey, with plans to add staff this year. In August 2003 eBay announced plans for an expansion of its Burnaby call centre from 200 to 1,000 jobs within two years.

There are currently an estimated 14,000 call centre jobs in total in greater Vancouver. The centres hire numerous entry level workers. In addition to the mostly front-line clerical staff who earn from $9 to $13 per hour, they also hire supervisory, management, sales and information systems staff.

It is unclear what impact a national do not call registry would have on the Canadian telemarketing industry. The impact will depend in part on any exemptions that may be given.

In the U.S., industry officials expect more than one-third of workers will lose their jobs within the next two years under that country's do not call rules.

Already Canadian regulations require individual telemarketers to keep a do not call list and respect requests for three years. However, most people have not been aware of this fact and they just hang up when they hear a telemarketer on the line. If they remain on the line, the telemarketer will ask whether the consumer wants to be excluded from all lists maintained by the telemarketing agency, not just from a list used for a particular client. This was started last fall.

The Canadian Marketing Association, which 800 corporate members include Canada's major financial institutions, insurance companies, and charitable organizations and which has been a vocal supporter of a national do not call list, has operated its own mandatory do not call service for its membership since 1988. The list also restricts the number of marketing offers received by mail and fax and now includes more than 450,000 phone numbers. The list has little legal bite, even less publicity, and is currently only adhered to by 80% of telemarketers who are association members.

The American do not call list came into force on October 1, 2003. Millions of Americans have signed up since then and the registry now includes more than 62 million registered telephone numbers. Any telemarketing company that calls one of these numbers can be fined as much as $11,000 per call.

However, the American legislation exempts some of the biggest users of telemarketing, for example, long distance phone companies, airlines, banks and credit unions, insurance companies, charities, pollsters, political organizations. Also, the do not call list can be ignored if the company already has an existing business relationship with its client. With all those exemptions, I am not quite sure whom Americans will be avoiding by signing up for the registry.

The CMA, along with the Canadian Bankers Association, argues that the current regulatory regime put in place by the CRTC is costly, ineffective and too broad. They want the regime scrapped and replaced with a U.S.-style do not call service. Besides requiring do not call lists, the CRTC also now requires callers to first identify themselves and the entity they represent and to offer a toll-free information line to be staffed during business hours, all before the sales pitch begins.

The CMA and the Canadian Bankers Association feel these regulations should not apply to a company's existing customers. CMA president John Gustavson suggests that these regulations would be bad for industry and would help make customer frustration fester.

Bill C-37 would do little more than allow the CRTC to establish databases, make orders regarding databases, delegate those powers and enforce those powers with financial penalties. The legal text on the penalties is far more extensive than the text on the databases that may be created.

The details on the operation of the do not call list are left entirely to the discretion of the CRTC. I consider this an affront to Parliament. As members of this chamber, we should be debating more than the mere idea of a bill. We should be considering the details of the proposed legislation as well.

We may agree with the idea of a do not call registry, but before we can support this bill we also need to know, for example, how or if the law would apply to charities and pollsters, how or if the law would apply to candidates who attempt to contact voters during an election campaign, whether the law would apply only to live sales pitches or to recorded messages and faxes, and what charges are to be paid by telemarketers to access the database.

The whole question of money is of particular concern. The government claims the registry would be self-financing, but it provides no further details. We must be mindful that the do not call registry does not become another gun registry in terms of both cost and management. My constituents are fed up with telemarketers calling them but do not want another $2 billion fiasco either.

As a consumer, I do not like receiving these calls from telemarketers. A do not call registry offers consumers a tool with which they can protect their homes against intrusions which are particularly invasive. Simply put, it gives consumers an option.

As parliamentarians, we must safeguard personal privacy and reduce the danger of telemarketing abuse. However, this must be done with clear legislation that spells out exactly how a do not call service would work, including any exemptions and how much it would cost taxpayers.

Bill C-37 is short on details. Almost everything is being left to the regulations. It would be irresponsible for me as a member of Parliament to allow this bill to pass in its current form. I will therefore be opposing this bill unless it is significantly amended to provide the full details of the proposed list.

[Petitions, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today from my constituents in Fleetwood—Port Kells who are asking that the federal government take immediate action to lower the interest payments on the debt and make a serious effort to repay the debt in a reasonable timeframe.

They are also asking for an investigation into the deliberate misspending and to investigate those who have profited from it.

[Marriage, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has refused to call the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. This spineless government appeal has backfired: the Liberals cannot claim the court made them end traditional marriage.

Marriage is a matter for Parliament, not judges.

It has nothing to do with the charter. This government could have endeavoured to defend the traditional definition of marriage by challenging lower court decisions, but it did not. Instead, the Liberals are attacking Canadian family values.

I firmly believe that Canada's laws and social programs should strive to support and uphold marriage and the family unit. The traditional definition of marriage must be preserved.

The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution. Altering it is a profound step that deserves vigorous, open debate. This is a matter for elected representatives to decide.

My party will have a free vote on any government legislation. I call upon the Prime Minister to allow all of his MPs, including members of--

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells on the Conservative Party's motion concerning the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery.

We are calling upon the government to launch a judicial inquiry into the 2004 Fraser River sockeye salmon harvest to determine why only 10% of the salmon reached their spawning grounds this year.

Sockeye salmon have been a mainstay in the B.C. economy for more than a century. Dwellings thousands of years old are testimony that the Fraser River salmon runs supported aboriginal communities for generations.

Fort Langley, built 50 kilometres upstream from the mouth of the Fraser River by the Hudson's Bay Company, began a salt salmon market in 1827. Native harvesters provided the tens of thousands of fish exported annually, and native women cleaned, cured and packed the catch. The barrels were shipped to Hawaii, a transfer point for trading ships to Asia and South America.

The B.C. canning industry was launched in 1871. Nine years later, Fraser River canned salmon was being eaten out of tins by thousands of factory workers in England. Forty-two thousand cases left the cannery and the following year that number tripled. At first it was the least numerous of the five species of salmon. Chinook was harvested for canning. By 1876 sockeye was deemed the tastiest in a can.

Last year the B.C. wild salmon harvest had a wholesale value of $183 million. Sockeye salmon, primarily harvested on the Fraser River, accounted for $71.8 million of that total. It will, however, be a different story in 2008 because of the disaster that struck the Fraser River sockeye salmon harvest this summer.

Initial federal fisheries counts showed only a small fraction of the predicted number of sockeye salmon reached their spawning grounds in northern B.C. this summer. Early counts on the spawning beds indicate up to 90% of those stocks vanished in the Fraser after passing a counting station on the lower river. As many as two million salmon could be unaccounted for.

The Department of Fisheries predicted earlier this year a run of 4.5 million sockeye, of which 2.2 million would survive to spawn. Now fewer than 400,000, perhaps 200,00, are expected to make it to the spawning grounds.

Whatever happened to these fish happened on the Fraser itself, as preliminary observations by fisheries officials found that the number of salmon arriving at the mouth of the Fraser River corresponded to expectations.

Federal fisheries scientists believe record high water temperature in the Fraser, which weaken sockeye and make them susceptible to a number of diseases and parasites, were probably responsible massive in river mortality.

Due to hot, dry weather, the Fraser River was about four degrees warmer than the normal temperature of 16° Celsius. In mid-August, DFO closed commercial fisheries directed at Fraser sockeye to conserve true late run sockeye. However, this was too little too late.

Another explanation for the disappearance of so many salmon is the impact of legal and illegal net fisheries in the river.

We know illegal fishing is taking place on the river. Aboriginal fishermen have access to out of province fish processing plants, commercial freezing operations and transportation. Therefore, taking into account overfishing by natives and illegal sales by poachers, the impact on salmon stocks is unknown.

Warm water was blamed when the sockeye salmon populations crashed in 1992 and 1994, but subsequent inquiries indicated nets in the river were really to blame.

In July the up river Tsilhqot'in band accused natives at the base of the Fraser of an undisciplined harvest of salmon. Evidence suggests aboriginal fishing occurred almost non-stop throughout migration periods. Further, aboriginals have conducted large scale illegal fishing operations before, netting 890,000 salmon in 1990. The potential for massive poaching clearly exists.

Whatever the explanation for this year's disaster, it is clear the management models and run predictions tools used by DFO did not measure up this season. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the senior responsibility for managing all wild salmon, including allocation, inventories, escapement and habitat management.

This Liberal government is failing to meet its obligations to conserve and manage this vital fisheries resource. It appears that the fisheries department, much like the government as a whole, is lacking in direction.

The Auditor General of Canada conducted reports dealing with the B.C. salmon industry in 1997, 1999 and 2000.

In 1997 the Auditor General's Office reported that Pacific salmon stocks and habitat were under stress. In 1999 it reported that the Pacific salmon fisheries were in trouble and their long term sustainability was also at risk because of overfishing, habitat loss and other factors. In 2000 it reported the fisheries department was not fully meeting its legislative obligations to protect wild salmon stocks.

In November of this year the B.C. auditor general, backing up the findings of his federal counterpart, questioned the management practices of the federal fisheries department. In the face of this criticism, the fisheries department has promised action, but these have been empty promises. British Columbians are still waiting for the department to finalize a wild salmon policy.

The Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery suffers from no clear objectives for the conservation of wild salmon. There are no goals for escapement and acceptable risks for managing the fishery. Concerns have been raised about the transparency, participation and timeliness of consultations on pre-season management plans and in-season decision-making.

There is also a lack of comprehensive information which prevents a complete assessment of the status of Pacific salmon stocks. There are no formal assessments for the majority of Fraser River sockeye stocks. In addition, there are concerns whether the in-season estimates of abundance, migration timing, route, stock composition and catch reporting of Fraser River sockeye are timely, adequate or accurate.

The fisheries department needs to develop a clear vision with goals and objectives for sustaining wild salmon and provide public policy direction about what is an acceptable risk to salmon habitat, and what is an acceptable loss of salmon run. That vision needs to be set out clearly to guide our actions, policies and programs.

For too long British Columbians have been waiting for this department to finalize a policy to clarify how conservation should be implemented and how the fisheries should be managed. Today we may be seeing the consequence of the department and this government's inaction.

The investigation, which was announced last month by the fisheries minister, is headed by a former B.C. chief justice with strong ties to the federal Liberal party. It is not a judicial inquiry and it does not appear independent.

We need a judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened during the 2004 sockeye salmon harvest. Such an inquiry is essential to get to the real reason why salmon stocks are in such bad shape and to get the recommendations we need to deal with this disaster.

We need to discover what really happened on the Fraser River this summer. If we do not come up with answers, it will be almost impossible, even with appropriate resources and even with a proper management plan and strategy, to come up with an effective response to ensure this disaster is not repeated.

For British Columbians, including my constituents, sockeye salmon is a vital public resource. The Fraser River fishery provides vital employment and spinoffs to a region still reeling from softwood lumber tariffs.

We deserve answers for what happened this summer. How did we allow millions of salmon to die? There must be a judicial inquiry. Only then will my constituents be able to rest assured they are receiving the information and solutions that will protect Fraser River sockeye salmon for this and future generations.

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, while the immigration minister has been preoccupied with strippers, the waiting period for family reunification class has increased to over 53 months. The arbitrary rejection of spouses applying to join husbands or wives in Canada has been undermining families.

The minister's mismanagement of her department and her preferential treatment for strippers is compromising the credibility and integrity of the immigration system. When will the Prime Minister fire the minister?

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we learned from the media, not from the minister, of another case of the immigration minister sending her top aide to a strip club to discuss bringing more exotic dancers into the country. The minister appears more interested in strippers than in reducing family reunification waiting times or recognizing foreign academic credentials. She sends her senior adviser to spend more time doing business in strip clubs than visiting hospitals to discuss the shortage of doctors.

The immigration minister has no credibility left. When will she resign?

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, all we hear from that side is talk, talk, talk. The government has done nothing for our first nations and our party wants this settlement of land claims to be done quickly and fairly. That is what we want.