37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 30, 2001
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution
Transfer Agreement |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Procedure and House
Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Kidney Disease |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Constitution of Canada |
|
|
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Export Development Act |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Williams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé
(Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Tobacco |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Prostate Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Communities in Bloom |
|
|
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Jean-Marc Ouellet |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings
(Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
E-Commerce |
|
|
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.) |
|
|
Trade Disputes |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Aboriginal Youth
Conference |
|
|
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador,
Lib.) |
|
|
1972 Election |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Fallen Heroes Fund |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe,
Lib.) |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
Délégation Générale du Québec in
Paris |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Yukon |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.) |
|
|
Trade |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand
(Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
North American
Security |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
International
Exchanges |
|
|
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State
(Science, Research and Development), Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber Industry |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question
Period |
|
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Firearms Act |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Export Development Act |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Export Development Act |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Fisheries and
Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Hepatitis C |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)
|
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Suspension of
Sitting |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(The sitting of the House
was suspended at 5.28 p.m.)
|
|
|
Sitting
Resumed |
|
|
The House resumed at 5.30
p.m.
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(Division 157) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time
and passed)
|
|
|
Supply |
|
|
Allotted Day--International Aid
Policy |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
(Division 158) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Export Development Act |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Richard Harris |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
(Division 159) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Bill read the third time
and passed)
|
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Library of
Parliament |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1005)
[English]
Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution
Transfer Agreement
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer
Agreement.
* * *
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
two petitions.
* * *
Committees of the
House
Procedure and House
Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 34th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its
order of reference from the House of Commons of June 12, 2001 concerning
private members' business, and I should like to move concurrence at this
time.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
Petitions
Kidney Disease
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present another
petition from citizens of the greater Peterborough area who are concerned about
kidney disease and kidney research.
They believe that it would be better if Canada's
national institute,which does wonderful work on kidney research, include the
word “kidney” in its title rather than having a relatively obscure academic
title.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the
Canadian institutes of health research to explicitly include kidney research as
one of the institutes in its system to be named the institute of kidney and
urinary tract diseases.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed
to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Constitution of Canada
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry,
Lib.)
moved:
|
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that
an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued
by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly
of each province to which the amendment applies; |
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons
resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be
made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto. |
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
CANADA |
1. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland
with Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act are amended by
striking out the words “Province of Newfoundland” wherever they occur and
substituting the words “Province of Newfoundland and Labrador”. |
2. Paragraph (g) of Term 33 of the
Schedule to the Act is amended by striking out the word “Newfoundland” and
substituting the words “the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador”. |
3. Term 38 of the Schedule to the Act
is amended by striking out the words “Newfoundland veterans” wherever they
occur and substituting the words “Newfoundland and Labrador
veterans”. |
4. Term 42 of the Schedule to the Act
is amended by striking out the words “Newfoundland merchant seamen” and
“Newfoundland merchant seaman” wherever they occur and substituting the words
“Newfoundland and Labrador merchant seamen” and “Newfoundland and Labrador
merchant seaman”, respectively. |
5. Subsection (2) of Term 46 of the
Schedule to the Act is amended by adding immediately after the word
“Newfoundland” where it first occurs the words “and Labrador”. |
6. This Amendment may be cited as the
Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Newfoundland and
Labrador). |
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined
by my colleague, the member for Labrador, and to note as well the presence in
the gallery of the House of Commons of the minister of intergovernmental
affairs of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Hon. Tom Lush, for what I believe is
an important and historic resolution.
Today I have the pleasure of introducing a resolution
to authorize a bilateral amendment to term 1 of the terms of union of
Newfoundland with Canada. The amendment would change the name of the province
to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Newfoundland became part of Canada on March 31, 1949,
with the Newfoundland Act which ratified the terms of union between
Newfoundland and Canada.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador has taken
many steps over time, beginning with the passage of the Labrador Act in 1964,
to recognize the reality that Labrador is a vital part of the province. The
Labrador Act provided for the official recognition of Labrador in the
provincial coat of arms, on government stationery and in government
publications.
While this was an important measure, the name of the
province provided for in the terms of union with Canada remains the province of
Newfoundland. That name does not reflect by itself the fundamental reality of
my home province, which includes both Newfoundland and Labrador.
Indeed, it is a unique province in the sense that so
much a part of the history, the reality, the culture, the songs and the
tradition of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is separated by the
Atlantic Ocean and the Strait of Belle Isle.
Many of our citizens, small in number but so dynamic,
have never fully felt their contribution and their presence reflected fully in
the governance of my home province or in its official name.
In April 1992 the Newfoundland house of assembly
unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the provincial government to take
the necessary steps to change the name of the province to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The Newfoundland and Labrador throne speech of March
20, 1996, called upon the provincial government to take the necessary action to
change the name of the province.
I was very honoured as the premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador on April 29, 1999, to rise in the Newfoundland house of assembly and
to seek and receive the unanimous adoption of a resolution authorizing the
Governor General to issue a proclamation to amend term 1 of the terms of union
to reflect the new name of the province to that of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The government then asked the Government of Canada to
take appropriate measures at the federal level to effect a constitutional
amendment. Our role and our responsibility now, as parliamentarians, is to
consider the proposed amendment at the national level and to decide whether to
approve it.
It is the longstanding practice of the Government of
Canada to take positive action in response to provincial requests for bilateral
amendments to the constitution.
Once proclaimed, this will be the seventh bilateral
amendment to the constitution to have successfully completed the amending
formula. This shows that progress on modernizing and improving the Canadian
federation can be made, and that our constitution continues to evolve in a
range of areas.
As I have indicated on several occasions, the
Government of Canada supports the amendment which provides a tangible way for
us to formally recognize the contribution of Labrador and of Labradorians.
Changing the name of the province is an importance
symbolic recognition of Labrador's status as a full and vital part of Canada's
easternmost province, with its own unique geography, history and culture. It is
about respect for Labrador and its inhabitants as essential contributors to my
home province and to its rich and diverse cultural heritage.
The proposed constitutional amendment will also reflect
Labradorians' understandable desire that this reality be reflected officially
in the province's name.
(1015)
[Translation]
What is at issue here is not a border, but a symbolic
gesture for Newfoundland and Labrador citizens.
[English]
Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides for
an amendment to Canada's constitution in relation to any provision that applies
to one or more but not all provinces. Such an amendment can be made by
proclamation issued by the Governor General under the great seal of Canada
where authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons and the
legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
I am joined today by the member for Labrador, and I
believe by all members on both sides from the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, in asking the House to give consideration to this request.
In deferring to the member for Labrador, with whom I
want to split my time, I would ask the House to give the member time to finish
his remarks. I also want to note that we have consulted with members of the
opposition. I specifically want to note that we have consulted with members of
the Bloc Quebecois. Indeed, I have consulted with the government of Quebec on
behalf of the Government of Canada, as has the government of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In anticipation, I would like to thank all members from
all parties but notably colleagues from Quebec on both sides of the House for
the spirit in which this resolution request is being received and I anticipate
and hope the manner in which it shall be voted. This is an important day for
all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador but no more important for any than
those of Labrador.
I will now cede my place to the member for Labrador who
has worked very hard on the resolution.
The Deputy Speaker:
The Chair would seek some guidance. The House will
respond yea or nay to the request for consent, but it might be helpful to all
of us if we had some indication as to the length of time the member for
Labrador might take in this intervention. Possibly the parliamentary secretary
to the government House leader might be helpful?
Mr. Geoff Regan:
Mr. Speaker, what we are requesting is that the member
for Labrador be able to speak for 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker:
The House has heard the request from the Minister of
Industry. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to my colleague, the Minister
of Industry and regional minister, and to all members of this great and
honourable House. I am the very first Labrador-born member of parliament in
this great Chamber and I am indeed very proud to serve in this Chamber with my
colleagues and of course to serve the people who put me here, the people of
Labrador.
For as long as I have been involved in political life,
and especially since becoming member of parliament for Labrador, I have always
had certain goals in mind. One of these goals has been to drive home the point
that Labrador has unique needs and challenges.
Labrador has enormous geography, enormous potential and
an enormous role to play in this country. Labrador also has a very strong
identity. No one could ever deny that.
Many years ago Mrs. Elizabeth Goudie wrote in her
autobiography, Woman of Labrador, that the name Labrador went deep
within her being. All of us who read that phrase knew exactly what she meant.
We knew it when we adopted the blue, white and green Labrador flag. Even though
the constitution until now did not recognize our name, we knew who we were.
There has never been any doubt in our minds that we are Labradorians.
There are many things that other Canadians and even
Newfoundlanders do not know about Labrador.
Labrador is two and a half times the size of
Newfoundland. Labrador is larger than the other 31 ridings of Atlantic Canada
put together. It is one of the largest ridings in Canada.
Ever since I was elected I have been trying hard to
educate my colleagues in parliament. I even have the Prime Minister saying
Labrador these days, which I am very proud of.
I look at a member here who had a great time in
Labrador. This past summer I had the honour of hosting my Atlantic Liberal
colleagues along the south coast of Labrador and a very noteworthy time was
had. We had a great time, absolutely phenomenal, down in Battle Harbour and
along the straits of Labrador.
Labrador has some of the richest history in Canada: the
9,000 year aboriginal pre-history in evidence at Point Amour, Ramah and
Rattler's Bight; the remains of the Basque whaling premises at Red Bay and
throughout southern Labrador; the historic sites of Hopedale, Hebron and Battle
Harbour; the stories of the trappers of North West River, the Hudson's Bay
Company; and the Moravian church at Makkovik and the Grand Falls “Bottle”. We
are only now beginning to tell our story to the world.
Our people came from all over: the Innu and Inuit
inhabitants whose ancestors were there when European cities were still swamps;
the settlers who came from England, Ireland, Scotland, the Channel Islands,
Canada and Newfoundland to build new lives in the freedom of Labrador; the
Metis, whose heritage goes back to the blending of these traditions centuries
ago; and the skilled and energetic people who helped build the modern
industrial Labrador in our interior resource towns.
Our unique settlement patterns and our distinct history
have given us our identity. We have maintained a deep and even spiritual
attachment to our land. Centuries of isolation and crossing of cultures have
led to a distinct Labrador spirit. We treasure that spirit, that attachment and
that identity.
The latest chapter of our history is the great military
and industrial development in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Wabush, Labrador City and
Churchill Falls, which contributes greatly to the provincial and national
economies.
(1020)
With developments such as Voisey's Bay and the
Trans-Labrador highway, we will continue to make our place in Canada.
Unfortunately over the years these developments have
not always been in the best interests of Labradorians. We have been too often
overlooked and forgotten. Our people and our land have not been respected. Our
needs were often ignored. Our identity was denied.
We should never again have to feel that someone else is
taking our mineral and energy wealth, our fisheries and forest resources and
even our name away from us. In its own way, this symbolic change in our
constitution will recognize Labrador and help ensure that we will never again
be forgotten.
There are still some who believe and will say that
Labrador is just a part of Newfoundland. They fail or refuse to recognize our
special character and our unique place. However, when we see the broad expanse
of Lake Melville, nearly as large as Prince Edward Island, stretching through
the horizon, when we stand at the bottom of the Saglek Fjord with 3,000 foot
cliffs towering overhead, when 25,000 caribou come streaming over a barren hill
in back of Double Mer, when we drive across the seemingly endless iron hills of
the interior, a landscape that inspired the Group of Seven, or when we find an
arrowhead or chip that was left by our aboriginal forefathers 5,000 years ago,
it is hard to accept that this is just another part of Newfoundland.
Our land and our people make us unique, not better,
just unique. Our identity, just like that of Newfoundland, Quebec, Nunavut or
Alberta, is worthy of celebrating and recognizing.
We are recognizing that Labrador is not a mere
appendage of Newfoundland but that we have our own traditions and our own
identity. We are recognizing that the Strait of Belle Isle, where I was born in
a small community called L'Anse-au-Loup, sets us apart even as the
constitutional evolution of Canada has brought Labrador and Newfoundland
together.
We as a parliament recognized Quebec's distinct
character in 1995 through a resolution and we recognized New Brunswick's
bilingual character in 1993 through a constitutional amendment, and so today we
are recognizing the dual geography and dual nature of Canada's newest province.
There is nothing divisive about this. It is common practice throughout the
world.
What is divisive is to gloss over and deny the
differences and distinctions between us instead of celebrating and recognizing
them. In fact the use of the name Newfoundland and Labrador goes back many
centuries, to 1763 when Labrador and Newfoundland were first placed under the
same government. It was in official use through the 19th and 20th centuries.
Everyone, at least in Labrador, knew that the name Newfoundland, proud as it
is, applied only to the large island off our southern shore.
Even during the debate that led to Confederation in
1949 there was some discussion of making Labrador part of the name of the new
province. It was not done at the time. However, over the years the words
Newfoundland and Labrador became more common and more widely used, if only
unofficially. That usage was not uniform, however. Labrador was too often
included where expedient and excluded the rest of the time. That will change
starting today.
Our founding document as a society and as a government
will no longer try to tell us that we do not exist. The oversight from 1949
will be corrected and the constitution will at last recognize the identity,
history and culture of Labrador. I would like to thank the industry minister
who as premier put the resolution through the House of Assembly and who as
minister today introduced it in the House. Hopefully we will be beyond this in
very short order.
Thirty years ago an elder in Cartwright, on the
southeast coast of Labrador, told Lawrence and Laura Jackson “I guess you'd
have to live here a lifetime--always with that left-out feeling--to know what
it feels like to be included in something”.
(1025)
I have known that left out feeling. I think almost
every true blooded son and daughter of Labrador has known that feeling. Our
land was too often the subject of colonial and economic power plays. Our people
were too often ignored. The attitudes and mindsets have prevailed too long that
Labrador is only recognized for what there is to be gained from megaprojects,
from resource extraction, from development by and for the benefit of other
people. In other circumstances, when it is time to put back into Labrador or to
realize our unique challenges and needs, it seems to be “how quickly they
forget”.
It is a small thing, a simple thing, but from today on
there will never again be any reason for forgetting.
The introduction of the name Labrador into the
constitution is not compensation for the wrongs of the past and it is not a
magic pill that will prevent them in the future. It is not an end in itself.
What it is, though, is one step on the road that sees Labrador gaining pride of
place.
We will soon have aboriginal self-government in
Labrador and with it greater self-reliance. Our community and economic leaders
are taking a more active role in development and policy and in making sure our
best interests are represented.
A new generation of entrepreneurs and promoters are
doing things in Labrador that I could never have imagined 30 years ago. People
are more active than they have ever been and have common visions that they are
working toward.
Recognizing Labrador in the constitution says that our
time has arrived, that we are here and we exist as a community and a region and
that we are willing to contribute to our province and our country, just as we
have always done.
We are often quiet in Labrador. That does not mean we
are complacent. We have certain needs and certain demands. We want equality and
dignity in public life. We want fairness and justice in our economic and social
development. We want recognition and respect from our fellow citizens.
In our own way we have achieved a milestone today.
There are many more to come.
I hope that I can count on the support not only of
Labradorians but of Newfoundlanders and all members of parliament in making
sure that Labrador, even if we do have second billing in the provincial name,
should never have to make do with second best.
We have taken one small step today. We have many more
to go. The road ahead will be difficult, it will be exciting and it will be
challenging. We do not always know where it may lead us. I lay down a challenge
to my colleagues and my friends, both in the House and beyond, a challenge to
support us, to work with us and to join us on that road.
(1030)
The Deputy Speaker:
For a moment I thought maybe we were leading to an
amendment that would state “the province of Labrador and
Newfoundland”.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues for their
eloquent speeches on the subject. I will begin my remarks by saying how
strongly I agree with the notion of providing for the symbolic recognition of
Labrador's role in Newfoundland and its place within Newfoundland.
This encapsulates a spirit that is important in the
country, a spirit of recognizing that just as Canada is a country of regions
our provinces are provinces of regions and have a great deal of diversity and
heterogeneity. In this respect they need to reflect the fact that they are not
homogeneous wholes.
The fact that in the past this country and other
countries have sometimes failed to achieve that recognition is demonstrated by
the fact that in some provinces of Canada and some subnational jurisdictions of
other countries we have seen the rise of separatist movements.
In Canada northern New Brunswick at one time had a
separatist movement. There was a partitionist movement in Quebec at one point.
There was a movement for an independent northern Ontario and at one point there
was a movement for Labrador to become a separate province.
This kind of recognition, while only symbolic, is
nonetheless important. Symbols are important as are the practical policies a
government must undertake to promote the inclusion of parts of a province that
are not part of a regional metropolis.
The inclusion of Labrador in the name of Newfoundland
and Labrador strikes me as a wise move. It has already happened in many
respects in Newfoundland's policy on an unofficial basis. For example, licence
plates from Newfoundland say Newfoundland and Labrador.
Labrador is a unique part of Canada in a number of
important respects. It is not only an area of enormous size and extraordinary
beauty. In some respects it is both the oldest and the newest part of Canada.
According to archeological evidence it was settled by the Innu at least 7,000
years and possibly 9,000 years ago. In the north it was settled by the Inuit
about 4,000 years ago.
Labrador is the first part of the North American
mainland that was visited by Europeans. I would seek the indulgence of the
House to read into the record the first description of Labrador ever recorded
in print.
This is from the Graenlendinga Saga, the saga
written to record the discovery of Greenland by Erik the Red and then of
Labrador and Newfoundland by his son, Leif Eriksson. It describes their
departure from what they called Helluland, which we now believe to be Baffin
Island:
They returned to their ship and put
to sea, and sighted a second land. Once again they sailed right up to it and
cast anchor, lowered a boat and went ashore. This country was flat and wooded,
with white sandy beaches wherever they went; and the land sloped gently down to
the sea. |
Based on this description and on the subsequent
description of Vinland, scholars believe this is a description of southern
Labrador. This is the area which has subsequently been settled and has become a
fishing area. Northern Labrador is a great deal more rugged. It is possible
that the description of Helluland is a description of northern Labrador.
Helluland means the land of large rocks.
Labrador is in some respects also the newest part of
Canada. Landsat Island in particular, an island off the coast of northern
Labrador, is the most recently discovered part of Canada. It was discovered in
1976 by Dr. Frank Hall Sr. of the hydrographic service. At that time it was
under the ministry of energy, mines and resources. He discovered the island
while surveying in a helicopter off the coast of Labrador.
(1035)
I have spoken to Frank Hall Sr. and he told me a
fascinating story about the moment of discovery. He was strapped into a harness
and lowered from a helicopter down to the island. This was quite a frozen
island and it was completely covered with ice. As he was lowered out of the
helicopter a polar bear took a swat at him. The bear was on the highest point
on the island and it was hard for him to see because it was white. Hall yanked
at the cable and got himself hauled up. He said he very nearly became the first
person to end his life on Landsat Island.
Based on the experience he suggested the island be
named polar island. However the name Landsat Island was given to it because the
island had first been spotted by the Landsat satellite, something which was
regarded as quite an accomplishment.
I can still remember listening to the radio as a small
boy and hearing with some excitement, because I had dreams of being an explorer
when I grew up, of the discovery of the new island off Canada's east coast. It
was a discovery of practical importance to Canada because it allowed Canada to
expand its territorial waters quite substantially. It was quite a remarkable
accomplishment.
I have an other connection with Frank Hall if I might
indulge the House in pointing it out. I am good friends with his son, and his
daughter-in-law works as my office manager.
I will turn from this to another question the hon.
minister raised in his comments, a question which has been raised in recent
newspaper reports regarding the reaction of the Parti Quebecois and Bloc
Quebecois to the proposed constitutional amendment. This relates to the
Quebec-Newfoundland boundary dispute over the sovereignty of
Labrador.
I will quote from the commentary that was given by
those two parties. Marie Barrette, spokesperson for Quebec intergovernmental
affairs minister Joseph Facal, said the amendment was purely cosmetic because
there would be no change to the borders. She therefore indicated the Quebec
government would have no opposition to it.
The Bloc Quebecois intergovernmental affairs critic
stated in an interview that since the amendment had no legal consequence it did
not keep them from sleeping at night.
This leads me to believe there is an underlying
statement being made to the effect that because the amendment does not affect
some sort of legitimate claim of the province of Quebec to the territory there
is no objection.
I will review the history of the boundary dispute to
make the point that the underlying thesis is incorrect. There is no question
that all the territory currently designated as Labrador is entirely and
unquestionably constitutionally protected as part of the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador and that no one else has any claim to it.
The history of the territorial dispute stems back to
unclear draftsmanship in the original definition of the boundaries of Labrador.
There was no question that the original European settlers of Labrador were to
be under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. They settled along the coast. The
description of the area they would inhabit and which would be under the
jurisdiction of Newfoundland was that it was an area of coastline extending
from Cape Chidley in the north to Blanc-Sablon in the south. Those two points
were not in question. What was in question was what was meant by coast.
(1040)
A dispute developed between the governments of Canada
and Newfoundland, which at the time was not part of Canada. The Government of
Canada claimed that the term coast meant a one mile wide strip of land along
salt water. The government of Newfoundland argued it should be the entire
watershed draining into the Atlantic.
The dispute was eventually sent to the privy council in
London. The privy council made a decision in 1927 delineating the boundary
substantially in Newfoundland's favour. The entire watershed flowing into the
Atlantic Ocean would be considered part of the territory of
Newfoundland.
This continued to a certain point in the south from
which a line was drawn due east to a point directly north of Blanc-Sablon. This
was then joined by a direct north-south boundary line drawn north from
Blanc-Sablon.
There was some question at the time as to why the
straight line was drawn. It took some of the upper watershed of several rivers
that flowed into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and placed it within Newfoundland
territory, in particular the Little Mecatina River which would not have fitted
with the earlier description.
One could dispute whether that was a wise addition or
change to the original formula. Whatever the case, the boundary was agreed to
by both parties. It was written into the Constitution of Canada when
Newfoundland and Labrador joined Canada and it is not subject to any form of
dispute. There is no legal argument that any of the territory is not clearly
and distinctly a constitutionally protected territory of the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say this not merely based on my own reading of the
facts. I say it based on the authority of the government of Quebec which
produced in 1970 and 1971 a detailed study on all the boundaries of
Quebec.
(1045)
[Translation]
I am talking here about the commission studying the
territorial integrity of Quebec.
[English]
Document 3.2 of the study dealing with “La Frontière du
Labrador” states that while Quebec might have had a claim at some point in the
past the privy council decision put it absolutely and unquestionably to rest.
The report acknowledges that there is no constitutional
way that Quebec could have any claim to any part of the territory of Labrador.
I think that also reflects the will of the people of Labrador.
In 1927 there were very few settlers in the interior.
That has changed. The interior is no longer an uninhabited area, uninhabited
from a European point of view, because it always had aboriginal elements of
living and hunting.
People who live in Labrador express no interest in
becoming a part of Quebec. When there is such a clear indication of popular
sentiment reflected so clearly by constitutionally entrenched legal rules, no
question can be disputed.
I turn finally to some closing comments, with regard to
Labrador and the character of the place.
Labrador is an extraordinarily large area
geographically. My colleague, the hon. member for Labrador, made this point in
his comments. If we think of this from a European perspective, Labrador is
larger than any of the countries in Europe, with the exception of Ukraine and
Russia.
It is full of not only extraordinary scenic beauty, but
also mineral wealth and rivers, some which have been tapped for hydro and some
have not. They all are appreciated by the people who draw resources from them.
In some respects, Labrador is to the east coast of
North America what Alaska is to the west coast of North America: a vast
northern land of almost unimaginable wealth, extraordinary beauty and an
extraordinary challenge for all of us.
To get a sense of what would characterize Labrador the
best, I contacted my friend, John McGrath, who was the Reform Party candidate
in a byelection in Labrador in 1996. He now resides in my constituency and will
be well known to the current member for Labrador. I asked him what best
expresses, in a nutshell, the character of Labrador. He suggested to me that I
ought to consult the Ode to Labrador, by Dr. Harry Padden of Northwest
River.
The Ode to Labrador reads in part as
follows:
Dear land of mountains, woods and snow...
God's noble gift to us below...
Thy proud resources waiting still,
Their splendid task will soon fulfill,
Obedient to thy Maker's will...
We love to climb thy mountains steep...
And paddle on the waters deep...
Our snowshoes scar thy trackless plains,
We seek no cities streets nor lanes,
We are thy sons while life remains,
Labrador, our Labrador.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it my duty and pleasure to join in the
debate concerning a constitutional amendment on the legal designation of the
province of Newfoundland, which would become the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Normally, as history regularly reminds us, amendments
to the Canadian constitution become historic highlights, important national
milestones or even historic benchmarks, but the debate in the House today is
less important because of the rather minor nature of this amendment.
The amendment introduced by the federal government and
sponsored by the Minister of Industry reflects a diluted version of the
previous position of the government of Newfoundland, and that is good. If it
had been any different, the Bloc Quebecois would not have been able to support
the motion, but more on that later. It should be noted that the very essence of
this constitutional amendment has long been a touchy issue in the relations
between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland.
The dispute that still keeps these two governments on
opposite sides concerning the recognition of the territory belonging to
Labrador did not start just the other day. In fact, Canada and Newfoundland
filed an appeal in 1927 with the judiciary committee of the Privy Council in
London for a ruling on the delineation of the border between the two on the
Labrador Peninsula. It should be pointed out that at the time Newfoundland was
only a colony of the British crown, as was Canada moreover, and the Privy
Council in London was the highest level of the judiciary for all
colonies.
The tribunal was therefore asked to interpret the
meaning of the expression “coast of Labrador”, a territory assigned to the
colony of Newfoundland by certain of the colonial laws. The Government of
Canada of the day, defending the territorial interests of Quebec, claimed that
this meant only a narrow strip of land along the water's edge. Newfoundland, on
the other hand, argued that the Newfoundland portion of Labrador extended to
the entire watershed draining into the Atlantic, an area very likely far larger
than any agreement could have been reached on.
The judges found in favour of Newfoundland. In addition
to the entire watershed draining into the Atlantic Ocean, Newfoundland was
awarded a portion of the territory to the north of the 52nd parallel, including
the watershed area of the rivers draining into the St. Lawrence, thus going
beyond the watershed line.
A number of commentators contested the reasons for the
decision. First, it seemed that the broad definition given the expression
“coast of Labrador” gave Newfoundland too much of territory Quebec considered
its own. It was later alleged that the delineation of the southern border along
the 52nd parallel gave Newfoundland more than it had asked for. It was noted
too that the government of Quebec was not present at the hearings of the
tribunal.
It is again important to point out that serious doubts
were expressed about the federal government's real interest in defending the
integrity of Quebec territory, since Newfoundland was already considered to be
a future province in the Canadian federation. Finally, doubt was often cast on
the impartiality of the judges on the judiciary committee, because the judges
belonged to a government whose members had economic interests in
Labrador.
We understand better today, with this historical
background, the scope of the sometimes troubled relationship between Quebec and
Newfoundland. However, the problem remains undiminished, and, had it not been
for some softening in the traditional stand taken by Newfoundland, it would be
a good bet that even the federal government would not have wanted to get
involved in any debate on the matter.
At the time, the governments of Newfoundland and Canada
accepted the 1927 opinion of the judicial committee of the Privy Council
setting the border between these two states, or at least between these two
territorial entities of the empire. In 1949, when Newfoundland joined the
Canadian federation, the border defined by the 1927 decision was confirmed
under the heading “Terms of Union”, enacted under the Newfoundland Act. In the
schedule, the second term reads as follows:
The Province of Newfoundland shall
comprise the same territory as at the date of Union, that is to say, the island
of Newfoundland and the islands adjacent thereto, the Coast of Labrador as
delimited in the report delivered by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's
Privy Council on the first day of March, 1927...and the islands adjacent to the
said Coast of Labrador. |
(1050)
Never, and I insist on that word, did a Quebec
government officially recognize the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland government
over Labrador, as delineated by the 1927 decision. For over 70 years now,
Liberal, PQ and Union nationale MNAs have always shared the same view on this
issue.
In spite of this imbroglio, over the years there have
been many bilateral development and co-operation agreements between Quebec and
Newfoundland. Moreover, relations between the two governments greatly improved
under the leadership of Premier Bouchard and of the current Minister of
Industry when he was premier of Newfoundland.
However, given the relative fragility of these
relations and the scope of future projects to be negotiated, Premier Bouchard
warned his Newfoundland counterpart against the negative interpretation that
could have been generated in Quebec by presenting a motion to officialize the
name of Newfoundland and Labrador, thus legalizing and officializing the 1927
judicial decision.
In this regard, Montreal's Gazette reported in
February 1997 Premier Bouchard's comments that presenting a resolution as
proposed by the Newfoundland government would revive a deep emotional debate in
Quebec and could be perceived as a form of provocation.
At the time, intense negotiations were taking place to
conclude an agreement of $10 billion or so to jointly develop Churchill Falls'
hydro electric potential.
Moreover, some semantic changes occurred in
Newfoundland's position, reaching a peak on December 6, 1999, when the premier
of that province, now the Minister of Industry said, and I quote:
(1055)
[English]
The resolution passed by the House of
Assembly and now being considered by the federal government would simply
legalize what has been the boundary of this province as confirmed by the
British Privy Council decision of 1927. |
It went on to say that the region of the province
should be acknowledged in the official name.
[Translation]
I insist on the word legalize, used by the then premier
of Newfoundland. This gives us a better understanding of the reaction of
Premier Bouchard, who considered this as an insult to the constant position of
Quebec on the border issue.
Again, I remind the House that no government in Quebec,
whatever its political stripe, has ever recognized the legal status of the
border drawn pursuant under the judiciary decision of 1927.
Obviously, Newfoundland's position as presented and
defended by the Minister of Industry, is not the same today, if we compare it
to the position he had when he was a member of parliament in St.
John's.
Things have evolved considerably, since the Minister of
Industry has softened his position by making clear in a letter to Premier
Bernard Landry, and I quote:
That the amendment proposal aiming at
changing the name of Newfoundland will have no impact on the present border
between Quebec and Newfoundland. |
Replacing the name of Newfoundland by
Newfoundland and Labrador in the Terms of Union is a symbolic measure which
acknowledges in a significant way that Labrador is an essential and full
partner of the province, with its own geography, history and
culture. |
The Minister of Industry reaffirmed this commitment
today when he brought forward his motion, just half an hour ago.
In a letter to Premier Landry dated October 23rd, Mr.
Grimes, the successor of the Minister of Industry and current premier of
Newfoundland, took a similar position.
He wrote, and I quote:
I wish to reiterate that this is only
a change of name, which in no way changes our position regarding our common
border or our position on the issue. |
Essentially, it is to be understood from those words
that the government of Newfoundland explicitly acknowledges that nothing in the
terms of the motion of the government will have any impact on the delimitation
of the border between Quebec and Newfoundland.
Incidentally, this guarantee was required as a sine qua
non condition for the approval by Quebec of the constitutional initiative of
Newfoundland, as stated in the letter of October 18 signed by Mr. Facal and Mr.
Brassard, both ministers in the government of Quebec.
The fact that some wish to amend the constitution to
facilitate the recognition of Quebec as a nation appears to me to be correct,
desirable, but also very unlikely, if not impossible. Unfortunately Quebecers
have too often been disappointed by the endless constitutional rounds to
rejoice about it, as the populations of Newfoundland and Labrador can today.
This is particularly true, given the disconcerting ease
with which this historic amendment to the constitution that we are debating
today will be enacted. It would appear, once again, as though the federal
government is biased toward Newfoundland and the other provinces of Canada, to
the exclusion, of course, of Quebec.
A few days before the 1998 Quebec elections, the Prime
Minister of Canada stated, in response to comments made by Jean Charest, that
the Canadian constitution was not a general store, and the Government of Canada
had no intention of reopening the issue; that there should be no expectations
of the federal government changing the constitution; and that everything was
coming up roses.
Last spring, the Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs even took pains to explain why Quebec's nationhood would not be
recognized in the constitution, ridiculing Quebecers' constitutional demands by
stating in an open letter to La Presse, on May 1, and I
quote:
We simply refuse to make the mistake
of believing that we have to put everything that is important in the
constitution. |
The minister continued with a highly questionable
example, which now contradicts the government, by writing, and I quote
again:
A great many things that are
important are not found in the constitution. The most important of values,
love, is not recognized...The fact that our constitution makes no mention of it
does not mean that love does not exist...but I believe this to be fundamental:
a constitution is not meant to contain everything that is important, but rather
everything for which there are legal consequences. |
Yet, according to the federal government and the
government of Newfoundland, the constitutional amendment designating the
“Province of Newfoundland” as the “Province of Newfoundland and Labrador” will
have no impact on the borders of Labrador. Why, then, should such a request
even be considered? The question remains to be answered, but the debate is
pointless, according to the federal government's interpretation.
(1100)
I already anticipate the triumphalist and trite remarks
of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who will
brag, even before the ink from the Governor General's pen has dried, that the
Canadian federation is flexible and that everyone stands to gain. At the point
where we are now, I hope at least that the Labrador people will be able to find
love for their province. In any case, this is practically the only thing that
they will be able to hope to get from the Minister of Industry.
The Quebec government has noted the change in direction
or goal of the Newfoundland government on this sensitive issue and agrees with
it, in light of the details of the text of the motion. However, it is important
to specify that Quebec's current position remains unchanged: it does not
recognize the definitive nature of the 1927 border between Quebec and
Newfoundland in the Labrador peninsula. Indeed, Quebec's official maps reflect
this position very accurately, while indicating the watershed divide north of
the 52th parallel.
The Bloc Quebecois will not oppose the motion and
wishes that the openness of the federal government may be able to affect the
whole of its rather deficient interpretation, must we remind the House, of its
own constitution.
Let us remember, of course, that this is a minor change
to the constitution. In fact, it is a cosmetic change to Canada's primary
statute, which would have no impact, except perhaps for a stronger feeling of
belonging for the 30,000 inhabitants of Labrador in the province of
Newfoundland.
Finally, before concluding my remarks, I would like to
draw the House's attention to something which was pointed out to me and which
is of paramount importance. According to the Dictionnaire illustré des noms
et lieux du Québec of the Commission de toponymie du Québec, the geographic
name “Labrador” can designate the “entire peninsula between Hudson Bay and the
axis of the St. Lawrence River”. In other words, regardless of where the
interprovincial boundary lies, there is a Quebec Labrador bounded on the west
by Hudson Bay and on the east by the Quebec-Newfoundland border, wherever that
border lies.
The 1927 arbitration seems to reflect this geographic
reality, because its purpose was to decide on the border separating the
province of Quebec and the colony of Newfoundland “in the Labrador peninsula”,
according to the wording of the compromise submitted to the judges. In
addition, the Privy Council was asked to rule on the legal and geographic
meaning of “coast of Labrador” in certain crown documents giving the government
of Newfoundland rights over this “coast”.
Newfoundland's use of the geographic name “Labrador”
could be viewed as incorrect from a constitutional point of view. In fact,
article 2 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada uses the expression
coast of Labrador to designate the continental portion of the territory
of the new province. Newfoundland therefore cannot claim to take in all of
Labrador in the geographic sense.
Finally, and very briefly, for all the reasons given
earlier by the Bloc Quebecois, we will not be opposing this motion.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in
this historic exchange of views and to debate a motion that will realize a
longstanding aspiration of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For over 30 years the government of Newfoundland and
Labrador referred to itself by that very name: Newfoundland and Labrador. Today
we are amending the Constitution of Canada so that the name change would be
enshrined in all legislation enacted by the Government of Canada.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador only passed
the motion requesting the Government of Canada to amend the constitution on
April 29, 1999. I understand that it has been a recurring topic of discussion
in that province for over 30 years.
In the 1960s the then government of Newfoundland
decided to officially include Labrador in its name to reflect the wishes and
concerns of the citizens of Labrador who joined Confederation at the same time
as their offshore brethren. In fact they had been part of the same dominion
territory since the beginning of the 19th century. It was also done to assure
them of their status within the province.
Since then all official government documentation,
legislation and essentially anything put out by the provincial government has
been published, released and referred to under the name of the government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The dual name has been widely accepted in
Newfoundland and Labrador and is considered to be the official name by which
the province is known though often in conversation the province is simply
spoken of as Newfoundland.
In supporting the motion we are simply giving effect to
the longstanding wishes of the citizens of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. It may take time to get used to saying Newfoundland and Labrador,
although some of us are in the habit of it already. The member for Labrador
said that he managed to teach the Prime Minister to do this, and we are glad to
hear the Prime Minister is teachable.
There is no doubt that the citizens of Newfoundland and
Labrador favour this change. The motion passed the legislative assembly
unanimously in 1999, the year before the federal government commissioned a
parliamentary committee to travel around the province finding out what
Newfoundlanders wanted.
The former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is
in the House today, may recall that the provincial NDP opposed the travelling
committee at that time. In its view the change had been so commonly accepted
that there was no need to spend money on a government junket asking people a
question that it already knew the answer to. Newfoundlanders responded with
rousing support for the changes without the need for an official government
commission.
Today we are asked to approve an amendment to the
constitution. This will be a bilateral amendment requiring only the consent of
the Government of Canada at the request of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Labrador is rightly seen as an integral part of the
province even though it only has 30,000 inhabitants compared to approximately
570,000 for the province. This amendment would recognize that Labrador is an
unquestionably important component rather than an adjunct to the province. The
member for Labrador made that argument quite eloquently.
(1105)
[Translation]
The dynamics of Canadian federalism would not be
affected by this motion. I would like to say, in passing, that the government
of Quebec did accept that the name of the province be changed to Newfoundland
and Labrador. The Minister of Industry said that the resolution would have no
impact on the boundary line between Newfoundland and Quebec. I think that he is
right in this regard, and I support that position.
[English]
The minister is not always right. We have to take these
opportunities when we can get them.
[Translation]
The last time the federal government presented that
motion, the Quebec government expressed its opposition to the change. I am
pleased to see that Minister Facal and the member for
Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier have finally recognized how important it is to
respect the will of Newfoundland citizens who want the name of their province
changed.
[English]
Finally I would like to reaffirm that this change to
the Canadian constitution, though minor but obviously significant to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador, is an example of how easy it can be to amend the
Canadian constitution to reflect the wishes of its citizens. I wish that in the
past when we had sought constitutional amendments that went further than
bilateral constitutional amendments that we had had as much success as we have
had in the House recently with bilateral constitutional amendments. This is the
second one having to do with Newfoundland and Labrador. There was one earlier
with respect to Quebec having to do with school boards in that
province.
I share the sentiments expressed by the member for
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier regarding the number of attempts to amend the
Canadian constitution to reflect the special place of Quebec within the
Canadian confederation that have not succeeded. I was here through those days
and supported those amendments, both Meech and Charlottetown, as was the
Minister of Industry. I hope that someday we might be standing here debating or
reflecting unanimously upon a change to the Canadian constitution that would
accomplish that, but that day has not yet arrived.
There is no reason for us not to do what is possible.
What is before us here today is possible and has the support of the
NDP.
(1110)
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the
constitutional amendment which officially changes the name of the province of
Newfoundland to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This might be a
symbolic change but it is a very important and substantive one in my view.
I congratulate the Minister of Industry, Newfoundland's
regional minister, for having taken the initiative to implement the change. He
started the process back when he was premier of Newfoundland and today we see
the culmination of that initiative. I support him and congratulate him on
having taken that initiative.
Let me congratulate also my colleague the member for
Labrador. He spoke very eloquently today about Labrador and its beauty, culture
and people, and well he should speak well of the people of Labrador. He is the
first native born member from Newfoundland to come to the House of Commons. I
congratulate him on that. He is a good member for Labrador and one whom I am
very pleased to work with on this matter.
Anyone who has lived in Labrador knows its beauty and
culture. And the people of Labrador, what fine people they are. The regional
minister from Newfoundland lived in Labrador for a number of years as did I.
The member for Labrador belongs to one of the most beautiful parts of our
province.
The territory we know as Labrador was awarded to
Newfoundland in 1927 by the British privy council. Both the island of
Newfoundland and Labrador changed hands between the British and the French on
many different occasions during the history of the European settlement in North
America. Labrador eventually ended up as part of Newfoundland.
In the early part of the 20th century it was generally
understood that Newfoundland owned the coast of Labrador. However the
governments of Newfoundland and Canada, which at that time represented the
province of Quebec, could not agree on just how far inland the coast extended.
At the time both Canada and Newfoundland were dominions within the British
empire. That meant they both ran their own domestic affairs but the British
privy council in London had the final say over foreign affairs and disputes
between the two dominions.
Newfoundland had previous experience going up against
Canada in London at the beginning of the 1890s. It was not a positive
experience. The Newfoundland colonial secretary Sir Robert Bond negotiated a
free trade fisheries deal with the American secretary of state Mr. Blaine. The
Bond-Blaine treaty as it came to be known raised the ire of Canada's maritime
provinces. The maritime provinces were upset that Newfoundland had done an end
run around them and had gained duty free access to American markets for its
fish products. Ottawa took the matter up with the British privy council in
London and in 1891 London quashed the treaty.
Canada even at that time was not familiar with free
trade but Newfoundland back in the 1890s had negotiated a free trade agreement
with the Americans called the Bond-Blaine treaty. It was in that context that
Canada and Newfoundland, unable to settle on the Canada-Newfoundland boundary
in Labrador, put that dispute to the judicial committee of the British privy
council.
(1115)
This time the privy council came down in Newfoundland's
favour. It ruled that the word “coast” meant territory from the beach to the
height of the land in the interior. That accounts for the highly erratic nature
of the Quebec-Labrador boundary. It skips across the tops of the hills and the
mountains in the interior of Labrador. That is how Labrador became a part of
the Dominion of Newfoundland back in 1927. Labrador was part of Newfoundland
when it became Canada's 10th province in 1949.
I have no hesitation in supporting an official name
change that reflects a reality that has existed since 1927. When this
resolution passes, and I believe it will probably get the unanimous support of
the House, the province of Newfoundland becomes the province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. This will officially recognize Labrador's status in the province
with its own unique geography, culture and history.
Now that our federal minister has made that change and
its name is secure, I sincerely hope he will make a few more changes for the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have spoken to him on a number of
occasions here in the House on the equalization and health care issues for
Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the St. John's harbour cleanup which is
very important to the people of St. John's.
The minister has been able to make a change to the
Constitution of Canada to reflect the name of the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Hopefully he will be able to make a few more changes which will be
just as substantive as this one today. We support including Labrador in the
official name of the province. We remind the minister that there are many
pressing problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador which he has to deal with as
well.
Three cheers for the minister for having made this
change, but let us not confuse anyone who may not be aware of our history. We
have owned Labrador since 1927; there is no question about that. In 1927 the
privy council awarded Labrador to Newfoundland. The Government of Canada
confirmed it and supported it as well. The resolution simply and officially
makes the long overdue name change to reflect what happened back in 1927. Any
individual or province who was not aware of that before is certainly aware of
it now.
I thank the minister for his initiative.
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member from
Newfoundland's comments. Could he elaborate a bit more on the economic
opportunities that await Labrador, not just in terms of the official name that
is being presented now but in terms of the economic opportunities that await
Labrador in the future?
Mr. Norman Doyle:
Mr. Speaker, many economic opportunities await
Labrador. All one has to do is look at what is happening now in Labrador with
respect to Voisey's Bay, which is possibly the largest nickel find in the
world. Labrador will be a recipient of a lot of the benefits which will come
from that great mining operation.
We can look at hydro power in Labrador. The mighty
Churchill Falls is a story in itself. There are many more rivers to be
developed in Labrador and great hydro potential to be had there.
We must not forget the great tourism potential which is
virtually untapped in Labrador. Labrador has to be one of the most beautiful
parts of the world.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The best kept
secret.
Mr. Norman Doyle: As my colleague from
Brandon--Souris said a moment ago, it is probably the best kept secret in all
of North America. We need to tap into the tourism potential to be had in
Labrador.
There is a great future for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador in these areas.
(1120)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to do something that I do not do
very often. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of Industry for his
initiatives not only in relation to bringing forth the government motion but
also the name change that took place unanimously in the house of assembly in
Newfoundland while the hon. gentleman was the premier of the
province.
He has certainly been the leader in bringing these two
great names together, recognizing that there is one province and that Labrador
is an equal part of that province. This is perhaps a fact that has been
overlooked by a lot of people for many years. I thank the hon. minister for
this initiative. This has to be a proud day for the people of the Labrador
section of the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why was this not done long ago? In the historic days of
colonization Canada was just a dominion and Newfoundland a little colony under
the direct rule of Britain for many years. Newfoundland eventually joined this
great Dominion of Canada and became part of this great country.
Labrador always seemed to be looked upon as an entity
unto itself and not part of the great province of Newfoundland and now
Newfoundland and Labrador. There seemed to be a geographic separation over the
years as well as a psychological separation.
The people of Newfoundland looked upon Labrador as a
place to go to rape the resources and take advantage of it. The area would then
be left for the people of Labrador to try to survive and eke out a living from
the resources without any assistance from either the province of Newfoundland
or from Canada. However these hardy people survived.
Over the years the recognition began to hit home. The
resources that were geographically in Labrador were not for the sake of
Newfoundland or for outsiders but primarily for the benefit of the people of
Labrador. The sharing concept between both parts, the island and the mainland,
has grown to the point whereby officially recognizing that we are one province,
Newfoundland and Labrador, we will not hear any more about the issue of divide
and conquer.
Labrador has brought so much into Confederation. We
hear what the province of Newfoundland brought in. However much of that is
actually part of the Labrador section. Now we can truthfully say the great
province of Newfoundland and Labrador brought so much into
Confederation.
This is quite different from the way we are viewed by
many people who do not know the great strengths and resources of our province.
At the most northerly tip of Labrador the scenery and fishing resources are
incredible. I am sure that anyone who has flown, I will not say walked, over
Torngat Mountains has had the pleasure of seeing how immense and beautiful they
are. The wilderness in Labrador is the last great wilderness in Canada where
hunting, fishing and hiking are indescribable. One has to be there to be able
to appreciate it.
There has been great mineral wealth discovered at
Labrador west in the mines that have kept the towns of Labrador City and Wabush
going for many years. The ore from that area has benefited Quebec and Ontario
perhaps to a much larger extent than we would like to see, with all due respect
to our friends in those provinces.
(1125)
There are the great discoveries in Voisey's Bay which
one of these days will be primarily developed for the benefit of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Undoubtedly there will be benefits for our sister
provinces as there should be. Newfoundland has never said no to that. It has
never said it would not share its great resources.
There are the northern cod stocks based off the coast
of Labrador which swim down the northeast coast to Cape St. Mary during the
summer. Over the years they provided a livelihood for the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They also provided a livelihood for many other
Canadian provinces and foreign nations that came in, raped our stocks, took
quotas given to them to sell other products, and we were left the losers. It is
to the point where the stocks have been practically wiped out. The people of
Newfoundland and Labrador are the losers. They received absolutely nothing in
return.
The best example of how we are treated is before us
right now. There is a 20% tariff placed on the great northern shrimp stocks
that we catch off the coast of Labrador and send to the European market. Our
fishermen face a 20% tariff on our peeled and cooked shrimp going to the
European market because one company in one country in the EU is trying to make
sure the tariff is imposed to protect its own market opportunities.
It does not make any sense whatsoever. It is not an
issue between Canada and the European Union at all. It is an issue between a
company in Denmark and Canada. It is something that should be resolved
overnight, instead of having to wait for the next round of World Trade
Organization discussions.
I have often said it is only Newfoundland and Labrador
and it is only fish. However the great fishing stocks off Newfoundland and
Labrador have kept many a country afloat since the discovery of Newfoundland in
1497. The economies of Britain, Spain and Portugal were all boosted
tremendously by the economic benefits from the processing of the fish stocks
off Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have oil and forest resources. We are an island and
a mainland section with a population of a little over half a million people. We
have more resources per capita than any province in Canada and any country in
the world. Yet we have the highest unemployment in Canada. We have sat back
over the years and watched others benefit from our resources and we have not
benefited at all.
I was in Taiwan earlier this summer. It is a country
that is smaller than Newfoundland with the population of Canada. It has less
than 4% unemployment and practically no resources.
What is wrong? It is the leadership in our province. It
must recognize the strengths we have and be willing to work with us. I am
delighted to support this initiative to make sure that Newfoundland and
Labrador are recognized equally as one province, not only in our own eyes but
in the eyes of this great country and the world.
(1130)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can claim to be one-quarter
Newfoundlander because my paternal grandfather was born and raised in Fortune
Harbour, Notre Dame Bay. Before I ask my question I wish to commend my
colleague, the member for Labrador, on his fine remarks and the regional
minister for Newfoundland, the Minister of Industry, on this initiative. It is
very important and much appreciated by all Canadians.
Would the hon. member share his expertise on what could
be done to encourage more Canadians to visit Labrador? It is a beautiful part
of Canada that I had the opportunity to see when I visited the hon. member's
riding a few years ago. It is an awesome part of the country that so few people
have seen. What initiatives could the Canadian government and the government of
Newfoundland and Labrador undertake co-operatively to help more Canadians visit
there and leave a few of their tourist dollars behind?
Mr. Loyola Hearn:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the question and I
am proud that he is part Newfoundlander. If we did a research study throughout
the House we might find that many more people are the descendants of people who
came from Newfoundland or at least through Newfoundland.
There are two things we can do. First, we have not done
a good job over the years of publicizing our positives. When we hear about
Newfoundland it is often looked upon as the poor cousin. That is changing. Our
job, the job of my colleagues across the House and my colleague from St. John's
East and others, should be to talk about what we have, the positives of
Newfoundland and Labrador. By doing so we would encourage more people to look
upon it as a place to visit rather than wondering who would want to be stuck
there.
The people who were in Gander during the September 11
events will tell us that they have never been treated so well in their lives.
Somebody from St. John's referred to a person from New York who was walking up
the waterfront as being stuck there all week. The person from New York said he
was not stuck and that he had never seen such beauty and freedom in all his
life.
We have to put more money into our infrastructure. One
of our problems is that we are an island and getting there by air is expensive.
We are held hostage by an Air Canada monopoly or by the ferry which should be
looked upon as a permanent link. It should be an essential service. It should
be an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. We have to pay more to get to
Newfoundland than any other province in the country. If we can solve some of
those problems and put more money into our general infrastructure, we can be
and eventually will be the Mecca of Canada.
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to rain on anyone's parade
but we do have a serious concern in Labrador with the Indian people at Davis
Inlet. I know the minister is listening.
Will the member reflect upon what we can do as a
parliament to improve the lives of the Indian people in Labrador, to increase
their standards especially in regard to the economy and to becoming more of a
player in the politics of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Loyola Hearn:
Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important question.
Two great races, the Innu and the Inuit, cover most of Labrador. They are in
Davis Inlet and many other areas.
One of the things we have tried to do with a lot of
these people is to show them how to do it our way. We should be asking them how
they would like to live their lives with their own leadership, under their own
direction and with some help and encouragement rather than trying to force our
way of life upon them.
If we set the example then perhaps we would see changes
in attitudes. They could make a good living for themselves rather than try to
depend upon the directions we set. The potential is there. Leadership is what
we need. It is something that has always been lacking in all of us.
(1135)
The Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
(1140)
Export Development Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill
C-31, an act to amend the Export Development
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (for the Minister for International
Trade) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed
to)
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (for the Minister for
International Trade) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity
to speak on third reading of this very important and timely bill, an act to
amend the Export Development Act. Bill C-31 is the outcome of a legislative
review process that was mandated in 1993. In that year a number of amendments
were made to the Export Development Act.
The purpose of the amendments was to improve the EDC's
ability to serve Canadian exporters. Canada's trade was expanding rapidly and
certain aspects of EDC's operations needed streamlining. If the debates that
surrounded the 1993 amendments were reviewed, we would find a strong consensus
that EDC is a key player in Canada's international trade.
The expansion of the corporation's powers was supported
by all parties. I do not have to tell the House how important Canada's exports
are to our national prosperity. Forty-three per cent of our GDP and one out of
four Canadian jobs are directly tied to exports. At the present time, EDC
supports nearly 10% of this trade. This is a remarkable role for a single firm
and underlines the corporation's importance to Canada.
Since the 1993 amendments took effect, EDC's business
has grown almost fourfold, reaching $45 billion last year. It is clear that the
1993 changes have borne fruit, but at that time they were seen as a bold step.
As a result parliament also decided to monitor the corporation's future
performance. It imposed a requirement for a thorough review of EDC's mandate in
five years' time.
That review began in 1998 with a report by the law firm
Gowling, Strathy & Henderson. This was the so-called Gowlings report which
was the starting point for studies by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade in the fall of 1999. That committee's report was
presented to the House in December 1999 and was the subject of a government
response tabled in parliament by the Minister for International Trade in May
2000. On the whole, the government endorsed the findings of the standing
committee.
Before moving to the substance of this bill and how it
responds to the many issues that were raised during the legislative review, I
will note a few things about the conduct of the review itself.
First, the terms of reference were extremely broad,
touching all aspects of EDC's operations and mandate: how were its current
programs operating; what were its customers views; EDC served a large number of
Canadian exporters, but what about those who did not use its services; and what
did its competitors think of it? All of these viewpoints were
sought.
Second, the review surveyed the dynamics of
international trade itself and the challenges facing Canadian exporters. Could
EDC's current services to them be improved? Was there untapped capacity in the
Canadian financial system that EDC might help deliver to exporters?
Third, a lot of stress was placed on non-commercial
issues like the environment and human rights. Was the corporation upholding
Canadian values in its activities? What effect did Canadian trade have on
economic and social development in other countries?
Finally, the review included very extensive public
consultations. If we look at the list of witnesses and written submissions that
were received during the review, we will see that scores of individuals,
companies and organizations were heard. There were additional consultations on
individuals' issues as well.
The review was conducted with great publicity. However,
this did not always make for easy decisions. There was a wide range of opinion
on the issues. Much of it was valid on its own terms but difficult to
reconcile. We did ensure that all voices were heard and that we were well
informed concerning where Canadians stood. There was strong consensus on some
points. I have already noted how Canada's economic well-being depends on
international trade.
(1145)
The review demonstrated EDC's significant contribution
to this trade. It is a well managed organization, highly valued by its clients
and respected by its competitors.
I would digress from my text to note that a major
exporting firm in my riding of London--Fanshawe, namely General Motors, diesel
and defense, has told me repeatedly how valuable the assistance of EDC has been
in helping it win very important export contracts.
EDC is innovative in its development of programs and an
important contributor to multilateral dialogue on trade issues.
Whatever changes we propose, we should preserve EDC's
flexibility to deliver its services and protect those programs that are
operating well. At the same time, there is also consensus that EDC could do
more to ensure adherence to those values that Canadians expect of an agency of
government. This is particularly true with regard to environmental and human
rights issues.
EDC is Canada's emissary in many important respects. In
some measure, it is Canada's reputation as well. All Canadians have a stake in
this.
The standing committee, in its report to the House,
summarized these views. EDC should meet reasonable environmental and social
standards in conducting its business. Its environmental review framework should
be given a firm basis in law. To promote greater transparency and rigour in the
framework, the auditor general should oversee its operation on a regular and
public basis.
EDC's development of a disclosure policy is welcomed,
but it should be subject to public consultations, independent review and the
corporation should consider using an ombudsman to help administer the
policy.
Finally, EDC should be required, by law, to pay due
regard to benefits to Canada and Canada's international commitments,
particularly those bearing on human rights and labour standards.
The challenge to do these things is not just for EDC or
other trade finance institutions. It is a challenge that confronts any firm
doing business on a certain scale. We are seeing very focused responses to it,
on the part of both individual firms and multilateral bodies, like the
organization for economic co-operation and development, where relevant codes of
business conduct are being developed.
The OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises are a
leading example of this. They outline principles and standards in areas as
diverse as employment and industrial relations, human rights and the
environment, disclosure and transparency and competition and tax. They are
voluntary but carry great political and moral weight.
Canada is a signatory to the guidelines and we have
agreed to encourage multinational enterprises to implement them.
However, there are no easy precedents to follow in
taking initiatives like these. At the most practical level, we are talking
about revising the due diligence that is practised by corporations on a
regular, daily basis.
New systems always have an impact on costs, on client
expectations and on accepted ways of doing business. Naturally, there is some
resistance. The work requires time, resources and real commitment. The
Government of Canada believes that our crown corporations have both the means
and the duty to take a leadership role in this work.
I would like to turn now to Bill C-31 and describe how
it responds to the concerns raised during the legislative review.
EDC served nearly 6,000 Canadian exporters last year.
The corporation is always working to expand this customer base. To do this,
Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises need easy access to EDC's services.
Part of this work involves service innovations like online credit insurance,
and EDC is taking steps to implement such systems. Part of it involves simple
publicity, and some members will have seen EDC's recent television
advertisements.
Both here and abroad, the corporation is known by the
popular acronym EDC. Bill C-31 would amend the corporation's name to Export
Development Canada in English and Exportation et développement Canada en
français.
(1150)
This would allow use of the well known brand name EDC
in both of Canada's official languages. It would strengthen the corporation's
identity as a Canadian institution and it would facilitate EDC's outreach
marketing, especially to small exporters throughout Canada.
In a subtle way then, the amendment serves an important
objective which I am sure we can all support.
Bill C-31 also contains two amendments to the powers of
its board of directors. The first would permit delegation of board powers to
subcommittees composed of directors with special abilities in some area of
corporate concern. This is a standard modern business practice. It permits a
corporate board to refer issues to those who are best qualified to deal with
them. It does not absolve the board of ultimate responsibility for the final
decisions taken in respect of such questions.
A related amendment would enable EDC's board to make
bylaws for the administration of a recently established pension plan. The new
plan took effect in April 2000. It was established with appropriate
authorizations and is consistent with treasury board policy that crown
corporations should establish pension plans independent of the
government.
I would like to turn now to the amendments that are
probably of most interest to the House. Bill C-31 would establish a legal
requirement for EDC to conduct environmental reviews of the projects it is
asked to support. EDC already does this but the amendment would make it a
binding legal obligation. A related amendment would require the auditor general
to conduct regular examinations of EDC's environmental review framework. These
examinations would cover both the design of the framework and EDC's performance
in applying it. The examinations would occur at least once every five years and
would be reported to parliament.
A related amendment would prevent duplicate
requirements arising under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Certain
ministerial or cabinet actions can trigger that act, for example when
ministerial authorizations are required for a transaction. Bill C-31 would
require environmental reviews under the Export Development Act but there would
still be a risk of a duplicate obligation arising under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. The amendment simply would prevent such
duplication from occurring.
Critics of Bill C-31 have suggested that EDC should be
regulated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This view was
expressed repeatedly throughout the legislative review but neither Gowlings nor
the standing committee took up the suggestion. In fact Gowlings stated that
legislating specific environmental requirements for EDC might not be practical.
Instead they recommended an approach similar to that of the United States
export credit agency Eximbank.
Eximbank has had an environmental requirement in its
governing legislation for almost 10 years. Eximbank's practices are often held
up as a model for other agencies. In this approach, a general mandate to
conduct environmental reviews is set by law but Eximbank's board of directors
is responsible for developing specific guidelines and procedures in
consultation with stakeholders.
This is precisely what Bill C-31 would do, establish a
general environmental mandate while leaving its implementation to EDC's board
of directors.
EDC recently completed public consultations on revising
its environmental review framework. It employed both the auditor general's
recommendations and specific government guidance in undertaking these
consultations. It has sought out and taken account of the views of industry and
NGOs. It has also engaged a leading environmental consultant to assist with the
consultations and prepare detailed recommendations for the framework's
revision. No other export credit agency in the world has had its environmental
procedures subjected to such meticulous and exhaustive review.
The possibility of regulating EDC under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act was given careful consideration before the present
course was chosen. In taking its decision, the government applied such criteria
as ensuring environmentally sound projects, protecting competitiveness,
respecting foreign sovereignty and preserving flexibility to operate in the
fast paced international environment.
(1155)
The approach we have chosen is consistent with the
emerging practice in the international community and with our work on this
issue in the OECD. It would provide a uniform process for EDC's projects and
permit rapid adaptation to changing competitive and technical circumstances. To
ensure that its procedures and standards are sound, the auditor general will
continue to oversee both its design and operation.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade has also recommended that EDC's mandate should include a
legal requirement to pay due regard to benefits to Canada and Canada's
international commitments, particularly those that concern human rights and
core labour standards.
EDC's mandate is trade promotion, to the benefit of
Canadian exporters and our common prosperity. Furthermore, as an agent of the
crown, EDC is already bound to adhere to Canada's international commitments.
However it was recognized that a general statutory mandate of this kind could
raise legal risks for the corporation without clarifying the specific
requirements that must be met in a given case. Unlike the environmental
mandate, there is no pre-existing framework to help ground such an obligation
in concrete operational measures.
Nonetheless, the government acknowledges the serious
concern that underlines the recommendation and is committed to ensuring that
economic benefits in international obligations are taken account of in EDC's
decision making. The government has decided to address this issue through two
interconnected mechanisms.
In the first place, EDC will be required by its
corporate plan to consider economic benefits to Canada and Canada's
international commitments in the areas of human rights and core labour
standards. Preparation of a corporate plan for crown corporations is required
by the Financial Administrative Act. A corporate plan sets out and limits the
range of a crown corporation's activities. It must be approved by ministers and
tabled in summary form in parliament. A crown corporation cannot act outside
the parameters set down in its corporate plan and must undertake to fulfill its
requirements. EDC's corporate plan will now include these requirements and the
House will have the ability to review its performance and assess whether the
requirements have indeed been met.
However general commitments to human rights mean little
unless we take concrete steps to ensure their respect in specific cases. At a
practical level, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is
working with EDC to refine our information sharing on human rights concerns in
specific countries. This will operate at the level of general or sectoral
conditions as well as individual projects. The objective is to ensure that
EDC's decisions take full account of both the facts of the situation and how
that may impact on Canada's international commitments. Once again, we recognize
this is an issue that is important to all Canadians.
In bringing Bill C-31 to parliament, my colleague, the
Minister for International Trade, took a very balanced approach to policy
reform at EDC. On the one hand, the bill would leave significant responsibility
in EDC's hands for the development of environmental and social policies. On the
other hand, both government oversight and public accountability would be
brought to these policies through regular consultations and the Office of the
Auditor General.
When we last amended the Export Development Act in
1993, we hoped the changes would benefit Canada's trade and promote our common
prosperity, and the intervening years have borne this out. Today we are again
taking bold steps to keep the Export Development Corporation at the forefront
of international trade practice.
I want to note that the legislation is very important
and would make EDC more transparent and accountable, but what is most important
is to have a proactive minister who will take it upon himself or herself,
whoever has the position at any given time, to ensure that the full weight of
the act is carried through.
(1200)
I want to acknowledge the proactive efforts of the
Minister for International Trade who said that he wants to see a report on the
activities of EDC within two years, not the five years for which the
legislation calls or even the three years which I believe the auditor general
proposed. The minister took the initiative in wanting a full audit in two years
time.
That is the kind of commitment the Minister for
International Trade and the government has to making sure EDC performs
effectively but in the most transparent way that is consistent with Canadian
values.
I ask all members of the House to endorse the
objectives of the bill and I look forward to their support for it.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-31,
the amendments to the Export Development Act. As the parliamentary secretary
laid out, I do recognize that this has been a lengthy process. The process of
review, consultation, surveys and other research that has gone into the
background leading up to these amendments has certainly been a longer process
than many of us have been involved in before. I have only been involved in this
portfolio since June of this year so there is a lot to catch up to.
What I can say is that very clearly a consensus was
developed on some of the needs that required addressing and they deal primarily
with the issue of transparency and environmental and social standards. It is
important to recognize what is the mandate of the Export Development
Corporation. It is a commercial financial institution, the mandate of which is
to support and develop directly or indirectly Canada's export trade and
Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to international
business opportunities. That public policy mandate is what makes EDC different
from our commercial financial institutions.
As a result of all the consultations and input from
various parties, we now have what is called an environmental review framework,
which is built in as part of the mandate of the Export Development Corporation.
It is to review on a timely basis the best available environmental information
on projects for which EDC support is sought.
One thing that is clear is that EDC borrowed
significantly from the World Bank group in regard to this. There is some
background on this from the standpoint that very clearly the World Bank screens
projects for their risk and impact and then categorizes them for their level of
potential impact. It then provides reasonable public transparency for those
projects that pose the greatest potential for environmental impact. The
environmental review framework for EDC resembles that kind of background.
On the basis of looking at it historically over a 12
year period, I found it very interesting that something in the order of 13% of
World Bank projects fall into category A, which requires a full environmental
assessment. Thirty-five per cent fit into category B. The bulk of the World
Bank's portfolio, just over 50%, was deemed to have no environmental impact and
therefore required no environmental analysis. This is the proper way to direct
ourselves because obviously every project or every finance opportunity does not
lead to the same degree of environmental concern. It will be interesting to
track the EDC experience over time and see how close it comes to reflecting
what has happened over the last 12 years with the World Bank group.
There are ongoing discussions at the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development. It is likely to strengthen environmental
considerations in its risk assessment practices for export development and
export credit agencies and would like to pursue a multilateral approach. This
is all very beneficial.
(1205)
There is a very high degree of desire from the people
who have appeared for consultations that the Export Development Corporation
demonstrate responsible behaviour. In a sense it is a representative of the
Canadian government and Canadian social and environmental practices, policies
and values. One of the things that became very clear is that we have had no
environmental mandate for EDC up to now. Although there has been some
recognition within EDC and it has changed its behaviour, there really were some
quite inappropriate measures or financing packages. Interestingly a lot of them
seem to revolve around our financing of dams around the world. They involve not
just environmental impacts but huge social impacts, having to do with
indigenous people or long term communities sometimes being uprooted, and a lot
of other untoward circumstances.
The government has argued at times that EDC was only a
minor player and therefore whether it entered into those packages or not was
not all that significant, but it was significant. I think it is important to
recognize that in the same way Canada has some moral high ground in terms of
its participation in the United Nations peacekeeping operations, often being
the first to be asked because once it commits that is the catalyst for others
to commit, the same argument could be used for EDC on some of these
environmental issues. It is important that we have an environmental conscience,
an environmental strategy, and that it is part of the decision making
process.
The other thing that became very clear in the
consultations and the responses to the proposed legislation is that people
retain a residual concern, which is that there is nothing to prevent the Export
Development Corporation under this legislation from revising its environmental
review framework if it deems circumstances to be such that this is the
appropriate thing to do. Many people wanted it to be more binding than that.
The Export Development Corporation's argument is, of
course, that it needs flexibility and there are industry participants and
stakeholders as well who are obviously concerned about any insecurity of
arrangements that might result if something could be an impediment to making a
binding arrangement.
(1210)
All of those things require a degree of balance that
leads me to think that although we have an environmental review framework right
now that is considered to be progressive, we will see further changes. There
will be pressure for further changes and it remains to be seen whether this
will be workable without having it more binding in terms of the statutory
requirement to have environmental assessments where appropriate.
I find it highly ironic that these amendments were
tabled on September 20, during our first week back in this fall session, when
just three weeks earlier on August 30, just before the long weekend, a very
good time to announce something if we do not really want people paying
attention to it, the minister appointed professional Liberal Bernard Boudreau
to the Export Development Corporation.
I said at the time that we have a crown corporation
attempting to operate at arm's length from government, and that is the stated
objective of its mandate and the stated objective of government, yet appointed
to head it is a long favoured friend of the government, appointed previously by
the Minister of Finance to the Bank of Canada in 1998, appointed by the Prime
Minister to the Senate in 1999 and appointed by the Prime Minister as the
Minister of State for ACOA in 1999. This individual then resigned from the
Senate in 2000 to run for the House of Commons and was defeated in November
2000. My point is that the independence of our crown corporations is made a
mockery of by the moves of their political masters on the Liberal
side.
In discussions with officials from EDC, I know how to
read between the lines. This is not good for morale. It is embarrassing for
professional employees of our crown corporations when these things happen. The
only justification that has ever been offered is that because they are at arm's
length and the government wants to retain some influence, the only way it can
see to do so is through appointments of its people.
I find this completely unacceptable. I think the
professionals who operate within this environment find it unacceptable but are
compromised in their ability to say so. It is time for this type of behaviour
to stop.
We have a living example with Canada Post. It is
portrayed by the government as an independent crown corporation. It has the
most blatant political patronage when it comes to filling the post of head of
Canada Post, a very lucrative position and one which would be well sought after
by very qualified people from the private sector. Yet we get political
appointments in that very visible, high profile position as well.
(1215)
We need to change that. It does not make Canada look
good in the international community. Basically it is saying that the government
wants it both ways. It lessens our stature domestically and
internationally.
Another aspect to the Export Development Corporation
which I would like to refer to is that there are two accounts within the Export
Development Corporation. There is the EDC corporate account where admittedly
the vast majority of EDC's business is conducted and there is this thing called
the Canada account. Reading EDC's own information from its corporate
communications department, it states:
Canada account is used to support
export transactions that are determined to be in the national interest. They
are negotiated, executed and administered by EDC but the risks are assumed by
the federal government. |
Negotiated, executed and administered by EDC is the
operative statement. I wish I could witness that this were true but we have all
seen very clearly that the Canada account has become a slush fund for Liberal
ministers. It gets disbursed under the cloak of being arm's length business of
the EDC and it simply is not in many instances.
This year for example EDC provided $3.7 billion in
loans to two U.S. airlines to buy Bombardier jets. In the first instance the
Minister of Industry made the announcement, basically barging in on the
Minister for International Trade's territory. At the time he said it was a one
time deal. Then just months later the Minister for International Trade followed
up with a second announcement.
The first one I believe was Northwest Air and the
second was Air Wisconsin. The first deal was $2.6 billion and the second was
$1.7 billion. These loan guarantees were to offset competition from Embraer
from Brazil.
We said at the time that this was inappropriate, that
there were other mechanisms, other avenues open to us. We had a four year fight
at WTO. We won the subsidy argument and we had $344 million worth of tariffs
that we could apply as a penalty against Brazilian imports on this corporate
jet subsidy argument. Rather than strengthening WTO and following its
judgments, we basically taunted WTO by going in direct competition with further
subsidies. This puts our taxpayers at risk, both on the loan and because we are
running the risk that WTO will find that to be unacceptable
behaviour.
(1220)
This is all at a time when Canada has a strong vested
interest in rules based trade. We have one of the strongest requirements of any
country for strengthening WTO, not weakening it. As a small country with a
large dependency on trade--
Mr. John Williams:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if
you were to seek it you would find there is unanimous consent of the House to
adopt Motion No. P-5.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The House has heard the member's request. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Duncan:
Madam Speaker, we are a small country population-wise
and a large country geographically, obviously. We are very dependent on our
exports.
We have a major dispute on lumber. We have steel
disputes. We have some agricultural disputes going on. We are reliant on WTO in
the long run supporting the fact that we are fair traders and free traders. All
of this, under the guise of some financing from the Export Development
Corporation under the Canada account which I am calling a Liberal minister
slush fund, is actually hurting us. It goes to the very core of what is
important for us as a national strategy. We simply cannot play both ends on
this kind of arrangement.
I am very critical of the Canada account. We do not
need it. It is undermining WTO. It is also undermining EDC. EDC needs to focus
on depoliticized finance arrangements, not on something like this. This has
been foisted on it and it does not have the ability to fend it off
unfortunately. It is a very unfortunate trend. I hope we can sort that out
internally without waiting for WTO or someone else to embarrass us to the point
where we have no choice but to remove it. We should be much more proactive than
that.
There are two further statements from the EDC website
which I will make reference to. The first one states:
As a crown corporation, we operate at
arm's length from government and according to commercial
principles. |
I would put that in the category of a wish list. That
is not actually what happens, as I have just described. The second statement
is:
Governance policies and practices are
determined by our board of directors. The board has 15 directors, drawn mainly
from the private sector. |
We know that is a wish list too, from the standpoint
that the board of directors does not entirely make all the decisions on
practices. Increasingly we are finding that the directors may be drawn from
political appointments as opposed to from the private sector.
In summary, the EDC needs to be independent of
government and it is not. I have given some rationale as to why, for example,
political appointments and the Canada account. The Canada account is a Liberal
minister slush fund. Mixed messages from the Minister of Industry and the
Minister for International Trade are hurting us at the WTO and in the
international community.
We are major beneficiaries of rules based trade and we
cannot have it both ways. In other words, we cannot be free traders when it is
convenient and protectionists when it is convenient. We have to have a level of
consistency on the free trade ledger.
(1225)
We have to keep this clean. It is too important for
Canada to do it any other way. Today for example we are expecting the
anti-dumping ruling from the protectionist side and instincts of the U.S.
lumber lobby as exhibited by the U.S. department of commerce on Canadian
imports of lumber. In order to keep the lumber file clean, we have to keep our
other files clean. Softwood lumber is a huge issue for us.
A portion of the EDC mandate is politicized. These
amendments do not clean that up. As a consequence, Canadian interests are not
fully served, nor are the interests of the Export Development Corporation fully
served.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Madam Speaker, we are now studying Bill C-31, an act to
amend the Export Development Act.
Before anything else, I would remind the House what the
key elements of this legislation are. The bill would enshrines in law the fact
that before entering into a financing transaction the Export Development
Corporation, whose name it changes incidentally, must take environmental
considerations into consideration.
The bill leaves it up to the Export Development
Corporation to establish its own environmental criteria and to determine the
exceptions to the rules. It is rare to see a corporation be made both judge and
defendant, when that corporation already does not comply with its own
directives.
We will see that in detail later on. In her May 2001
report, the auditor general stated that, out of the 25 projects audited under
the terms of reference determined by the corporation itself, she found 23 to be
in violation of those terms of reference. I am referring to the Export
Development Corporation.
The present bill adds nothing to the requirement for
accountability on the part of that corporation. There is nothing in the bill
about the disclosure of information or about public consultation.
As I said, the frame of reference is what the
corporation assigns to itself, and there is really nothing in the bill to
ensure that this framework is adequate to properly assess the environmental
effects of projects submitted to it.
Moreover, the bill gives the rather strange
discretionary power to the Minister of Finance and the Minister for
International Trade to exempt a project from environmental assessment. The
bill, in principle, gives exclusion from any of the requirements of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I must admit that we are totally mystified by this
choice. We pass environmental assessment legislation and then exempt the
corporation from it, at the very time that it is being asked to put more effort
into its environmental assessments.
Finally, this bill makes absolutely no mention of human
rights.
As hon. members can see, this bill might appear
ambitious, in light of the criticism there has been of the EDC in recent years.
Once read, however, it can be seen to be a pretty lightweight piece of
legislation.
I would take this opportunity to remind the House that
the EDC was established in 1944, as the Export Credits Insurance Corporation,
with a mandate to support and develop Canada's export trade. It was given the
responsibility of providing credit insurance and guarantees to Canadian
exporters. In 1969 it became a crown corporation and acquired the additional
powers of being able to make direct loans to foreign borrowers, and to borrow
against the government's credit to finance its activities.
The last change, made in 1993, now enables it to invest
in capital stock, to lease assets to users outside Canada, to constitute
subsidiaries, and to take part in joint ventures.
It is noteworthy that the EDC is self-funding, in that
it receives no parliamentary votes for its activities. It derives its operating
revenue from fees, premiums and loan interest.
In the year 2000, for instance, it reported net profits
of $194 million, a 9.7% return on shareholder assets. Its assets would
therefore be some $2.8 billion. That same year, hon. members will recall, the
corporation estimated that it had supported exports and foreign investments to
the tune of some $45 billion.
Finally, let us not forget that this crown corporation
enjoys special status. It is not subject to the Access to Information Act. It
is not subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. It is not regulated by the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as is the case for all
private enterprises. It does not pay income tax. It does not have to pay
dividends. It can borrow money at favourable rates, thanks to the credit
extended to the Government of Canada.
(1230)
I think it must also be said that the Export
Development Corporation has a highly developed secrecy policy: it hardly gives
out any information about its activities.
In the evidence we heard at the Standing Committee on
External Affairs and International Trade, most of the groups that appeared
before the committee, particularly the international co-operation groups,
reminded us of the difficulty they had in getting information.
For example, Warren Allmand, a former Liberal member
and minister, who is now president of Rights and Democracy, presented a
document that was obtained by his organization through the Access to
Information Act. The document was completely blank. This shows that a secrecy
policy, a lack of transparency, seems to be a feature of this
corporation.
Coming back specifically to the environmental issue,
since it is the only new element in this bill, we see that the corporation will
set up an environmental framework to apply environmental criteria to its
financing decisions.
As I already mentioned, in response to many criticisms,
the auditor general was asked to assess the appropriateness of the Export
Development Corporation's environmental review framework. She concluded that
the framework contains, and I quote “most elements of a suitably designed
environmental review process”. However, it would appear that the framework has
never been properly applied.
As I mentioned at the outset, and I think the Canadian
and Quebec public have to know it, out of the 25 projects she studied, 23 had
not been properly reviewed for environmental risks, or not reviewed at all, in
accordance with the framework the corporation had defined.
Of course, this was not the only thing she criticized.
I will repeat some of her criticisms, as set out in her May 2001
report.
The auditor general pointed out that there are major
shortcomings in terms of public consultation and disclosure at the Export
Development Corporation, there are significant differences between the
environmental review framework's design and its operation, the framework's
statement of objectives is not clear, the framework's environmental standards
are not specified, there are flaws at each stage of the environmental review
process, screening tools are not applied adequately to identify potential
environmental risk, and there is no methodology to determine if adverse
environmental risks can justify a decision or not.
It is not the only report we can refer to in order to
have an idea of the major shortcomings in the current management approach taken
by the Export Development Corporation. Members will recall that in 1999, the
Gowlings report pointed out much the same shortcomings with regard to
transparency, environmental review and human rights. In December 1999, the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade tabled its
report, in which we find basically the same criticisms.
So we are dealing with a corporation that has gotten
some pretty bad press from most groups, including parliamentarians. In my
opinion, this should have elicited a much stronger response from the federal
government than that which was given with Bill C-31.
In December 1999, the Bloc Quebecois published a
dissenting opinion to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade; it was already clear to us then that there was
disagreement that could be boiled down to three elements: transparency, human
rights and the environment.
I will recap the main elements that we highlighted in
December 1999. Regarding transparency, we noted that there was an obvious and
marked lack of transparency in the Export Development Corporation's operations;
that access to information was sorely lacking; and that given the context of a
lack of transparency, it was highly likely that the Export Development
Corporation's activities could be used for inappropriate purposes, which might
even conflict with the purposes outlined in the statute.
(1235)
Therefore, it seemed essential to us at that time that
the Export Development Corporation be subject to the Access to Information
Act.
As for human rights, the Bloc Quebecois expressed
serious concern regarding the Export Development Corporation when it comes to
respecting human rights. Among the risks that the corporation assumes, there
are political factors. It provides political risk insurance. However, the
Export Development Corporation does not take into consideration the human
rights situation when it assesses political risks. When it comes to political
risks, obviously there is a serious risk of political upheaval in the case of
regimes that abuse human rights and do not respect fundamental labour
law.
Before providing support for a business, the
corporation should at the very least—this is what we thought then, and still
think now—ensure that the company in question subscribes to the code of conduct
established by the OECD, when it comes to human rights. Bill C-31 makes no
mention of this fact, as I stated earlier.
As for environmental standards, they are briefly
mentioned in Bill C-31. The Bloc Quebecois was and is still of the opinion that
the committee's recommendations concerning the environmental responsibility of
the Export Development Corporation—we refer here to the report of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade—were nothing but a wish
list. It was not enough to ensure that, in fact, the environment will now be
included in the corporation's studies prior to any decision making
process.
The Export Development Corporation's environmental
responsibility must be more firmly anchored in order to better reflect the
corporation's duty as regards environment, respect for the environment, and
sustainable development.
In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois would have expected
the Export Development Corporation to draw more from the operating framework of
the World Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, where
for each reasonable project there is an environmental impact assessment, public
hearings, and above all full transparency.
We cannot accept that the Export Development
Corporation, even under its new name, should use public moneys to fund projects
that could end up destroying the environment or violating human rights, and do
so with impunity, as secrecy is one of the corporation's
characteristics.
As I indicated, there were three very harsh reports.
The May 2001 report of the auditor general, the report of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, complete with the Bloc
Quebecois dissenting report, and the Gowlings report were all extremely
critical.
In a way, Bill C-31 was presented as a response to this
criticism, since that the Export Development Corporation had obviously not
succeeded in regulating itself. One would have expected Bill C-31 to address
this weakness, but there is nothing in this bill to do so.
The bill is too weak from an environmental point of
view. It provides no guarantee for an effective environmental assessment and
gives the EDC too much leeway in establishing the criteria. It is silent on
disclosure. The bill does not include any punitive provisions should the EDC
not respect its own environmental framework.
We have seen in the auditor general report that in 23
of the 25 projects examined, the framework had not been respected. In this
regard, I shall point out that Quebec imposes fines and even jail terms on
officials who are found guilty of negligence in environmental
matters.
On the other hand, the bill is watering down
environmental standards by not assuring Canadians that projects comply with
more than just the standards of host countries, and that they respect the
environmental review framework. This bill also excludes any possibility of
making the EDC subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Since the
corporation has no credibility whatsoever, this bill does not represent a
response to the criticisms made repeatedly over the last three years.
(1240)
Finally, Bill C-31 completely sidesteps the issue of
fundamental rights, human rights, labour rights, and this is totally
unacceptable. For example, we know of this gold mine in Tanzania that belongs
to a Canadian company which was granted a political risk insurance by the
Export Development Corporation.
The mine was apparently put at the disposal of the
Canadian company following a massive eviction of artisanal miners. There are
even allegations by Tanzanian lawyers which were made public here in Canada to
the effect that, as part of this massive eviction operation--and we are talking
about hundreds of thousands of people--there were artisanal miners who were
buried alive in their mine. These are allegations.
I take this opportunity to mention that the NDP leader
asked a question in this House concerning this extremely disturbing case. In
his reply, the Minister for International Trade referred to the fact that
Amnesty International had investigated the matter, but had not found evidence
supporting the allegations made by human rights lawyers, particularly Tanzanian
lawyers.
However, in its annual report for the year 2000,
Amnesty International says that, based on the documents provided to it by the
Tanzanian police, it was not able to come to a conclusion regarding this issue,
and it is asking for an independent, international investigation to shed light
on these events.
Contrary to what the minister told us, probably in good
faith, not only did Amnesty International not come to a conclusion regarding
these extremely disturbing and dramatic facts, but it is also asking--as we
are--for an independent, international investigation to shed light on all these
events.
Be that as it may, the Export Development Corporation
continues to proceed as if it were business as usual.
In order to correct this situation, I proposed a number
of amendments in committee, which I will mention.
These amendments basically deal with clause 10.(1) and
seek to correct a number of flaws relating to this clause and to make
appropriate related changes. I will discuss clause 10.1
For example, absolutely no reference is made to the
EDC's responsibility to take into account not only environmental effects, but
also social effects and, more globally, human and other rights provided for in
international agreements.
I therefore proposed that, to this clause, be added a
point that would clarify the mandate of Export Development Corporation. The
amendment read as follows:
The Corporation is established for
the purposes of supporting and developing, directly or indirectly, Canada's
export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to
international business opportunities in keeping with Canada's international
commitments. |
It strikes me as perfectly normal that a crown
corporation would honour commitments made by the government internationally,
especially in the area of human rights and basic labour rights.
Believe it or not, the Liberal members of the committee
rejected this amendment. It is difficult to understand how the federal
government makes commitments on Canada's and Canadians' behalf, and indirectly
still on behalf of Quebecers, and then does not want to require its own
corporations to honour these commitments. We are indeed talking about
international commitments, that is conventions, treaties and charters ratified
by the Canadian government.
(1245)
I have to say I was quite disillusioned about the scope
of the work Canada can do internationally, if it is not prepared to have its
crown corporations honour the commitments it itself makes. How is it going to
get private firms and multinationals based in Canada to honour these
commitments?
So my first disappointment was at the rejection of such
an obvious amendment, which was later reformulated by the member for
Burnaby--Douglas, in fact. Twice, we have tried to get this element, a simple
matter of common sense, passed, and twice the Liberal members have rejected it.
That was the first great disappointment.
As I said in my presentation, the environmental frame
of reference that the Export Development Corporation has set for itself is
inadequate. It fails to honour this environmental framework it set for itself.
It is therefore incapable of self-regulation.
Paragraph (2) of the famous clause 10 reads as
follows:
The Board shall issue a directive
respecting the determination referred to in subsection (1)-- |
That is the assessment of environmental
effects.
|
(a) define the words and expressions that the Board
considers necessary for the application of that subsection, including the words
and expressions “transaction”, “project”, “adverse environmental effects” and
“mitigation measures”; |
|
(b) establish the criteria that the Corporation must
apply in making the determination: |
|
(c) establish exceptions specifically or by any class, as
defined by the Board, to the Corporation's obligation to make the
determination. |
It is therefore not an obligation. The Export
Development Corporation can define its own terms of reference. It beats me how
there can be environmental terms of reference without some sort of minimal
definition of words such as transaction, project, adverse environmental effects
and mitigation measures.
I therefore proposed an amendment to Bill C-31 to
define these various terms. People must know what they are talking about when
they refer to impact on the environment. Without reading the amendment in its
entirety, I will convey the gist of it by reading what strikes me as the most
important term, environmental effects, because this has to do with a framework
for assessing environmental effects. I suggested this definition to the
committee:
|
environmental effects means any change that the project may
cause in the environment, including any effect of any such change on health and
socio-economic conditions-- |
It is very clear to me that when one refers to
environmental effects, one is also referring to socio-economic
effects:
|
on the
current use of lands and resources by local communities, on any structure, site
or thing that is of historical, archaeological...importance-- |
As the House can see, it is a very straightforward
definition. The definitions are borrowed from the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act. We therefore did not rebuild the wheel; we used what was
already available. I also borrowed the definition of environment, environmental
assessment, mitigation and project.
Here again, I was astonished, because it is only common
sense that if a crown corporation adopts environmental terms of reference,
there should at least be agreement on the terminology used to make an
assessment.
Once again, the Liberal members of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade rejected this amendment. I
am still wondering what logic they could have used, unless it was a form of
anti-opposition sectarianism.
A second amendment was therefore rejected. Its purpose
was merely to define the terms on which we must work and agree on so that when
the auditor general and parliamentarians are called upon to assess the work of
this crown corporation, they will know where we are coming from.
As I said, I believe definitions are necessary, but we
ought to have at least been able to expect to find the bill stating that the
corporation “must” define a certain number of criteria, and make these
definitions public in order to open them up to public debate. It seems,
however, that the government side of this House prefers to lend to this bill
the same secrecy as reigns within this crown corporation, the EDC, at the
present time.
As I said earlier, not only are definitions lacking,
but the frame of reference for assessments is flawed as well.
(1250)
All that is stated in clause 10.1 is the
following:
10.1(1) Before entering, in the
exercise of its powers under subsection 10(1.1), into a transaction that is
related to a project, the Corporation must determine, in accordance with the
directive referred to in subsection (2), |
|
(a) whether the project is likely to have adverse
environmental effects despite the implementation of mitigation measures;
and |
|
(b) if such is the case, whether the Corporation is justified in
entering into the transaction. |
.
Hon. members can see that this is far too weak a
directive from the legislator. I therefore took the liberty of submitting to
the committee a far clearer, and far more complete, environmental assessment
procedure.
In connection with the first element of this procedure,
what I proposed--not just what is stated here about looking to see whether
there are likely to be adverse environmental effects--what I proposed was for
the corporation to be required to carry out an environmental assessment before
exercising its power to assess a project against a series of criteria, such as
environmental assessment, or the development and implementation of a program
for follow up. Then the environmental effects must be determined, along with
the extent of these effects. Comments from the local population must be
obtained. And are the mitigation measures technically and economically
feasible?
Furthermore, the rationale behind the bill is
important. There are the alternative solutions and the requirement for a follow
up program. Those are all self-evident criteria for the evaluation of any
project.
The corporation carries out the environmental
assessment, prepares a report and sends it to the Minister for International
Trade. On the basis of that report, the corporation takes one of the following
measures, depending on the environmental assessment: it decides either to go
ahead with the project or not to support the project because its environmental
impact would be negative. In that case,however, what is EDC to do? It is not
really clear; there is a grey area? Can the corporation be judge and defendant?
I do not think so. It seems to me that in such a case the Minister for
International Trade has a responsibility and a role to play.
I was suggesting that, whenever it is unclear whether
the adverse environmental effects outweigh the value of a project, the
corporation should ask the Minister for International Trade to decide. If the
corporation considers that even after the implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures, the project might have serious adverse environmental
effects, it should refer the matter to the minister.
If a project is likely to have major adverse
environmental effects despite the implementation of mitigation measures and if
the previous clause does not apply, the EDC refers to the minister, provided
the concerns of local populations justify such a measure.
This is an environmental frame of reference that leaves
a lot of leeway to the Export Development Corporation, while defining rules
that everyone would know and understand.
Under Bill C-31, the corporation will set for itself
the rules that it wants. It will decide whether or not it will comply with
these rules.
Finally, in the same amendment, I proposed including
two small provisions whereby the corporation would have to disclose, in the 45
days prior to the conclusion of an agreement, information on the projects in
which it is involved. This information was to include the name of the borrower,
the host country of the project, the environmental and social concerns of local
populations, the value of the project and the conditions relating to financial
support.
If we want Canadians and Quebecers, international
solidarity organizations and any interested party to be able to express their
own views on the evaluations to be made before supporting a project, the public
must be informed of the existence of the project.
Finally, we proposed that no provision in the Privacy
Act or the Access to Information Act should have the effect of preventing or
restricting the disclosure of the information mentioned in the previous
paragraphs, to which I just referred. This is a fundamental flaw in Bill C-31.
Nothing is done to give Canadians and Quebecers access to information on the
management of the Export Development Corporation.
(1255)
It will obviously be no surprise to anyone if I say
that the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade voted against this amendment, which, as I mentioned, was
drawn from internationally known rules. More specifically, I drew on the rules
of the World Bank. We were not starting a revolution in committee by proposing
such amendments, but it was rejected. Once again, I have a hard time
understanding the reasons.
Finally, in light of the criticism raised about the
governance of the Export Development Corporation, I cited three or four damning
reports, but the evidence of representatives of NGOs, groups and individuals
before the standing committee should have been heard. They raised questions of
considerable concern.
I think that, to wait until the auditor general looks
into the EDC's operations every five years, is to give the corporation far too
much latitude, especially with what is contained in the rest of Bill C-31.
There is practically nothing there to really structure the work of this crown
corporation. If an audit is done only every five years, the Export Development
Corporation will have time to do a lot of damage.
Some guideline must be set in terms of time so that in
the next two years, the auditor general will be able to report on management
methods subsequent to the passage of this bill on the Export Development
Corporation.
Did it make the changes the Canadian and Quebec public
were expecting? Did it support projects consistent with our laws and concepts
of sustainable development in environmental terms? Did it support projects that
promoted fundamental rights or, conversely, did it help to further destroy our
planet and further erode the rights of workers and people in countries in the
southern hemisphere?
In my opinion, five years is too long a time. I
therefore proposed an amendment to enable the auditor general to examine the
governance of the Export Development Corporation.
Once again, no one will be surprised to hear me say
that the Liberal members voted against this amendment, which makes good
sense.
The legislation is therefore still hollow. Bill C-31
does not address any of the concerns repeatedly mentioned by committees,
groups, individuals, and Canadians and Quebecers. The bill is nothing more than
a surface attempt to give the impression that the federal government has
listened to the criticisms and made the necessary changes.
It has not. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to
go through the whole bill but as soon as the surface is scratched, the bill's
hollowness becomes apparent.
I think the criticisms of the Export Development
Corporation in recent years will not end, even with a name change. On the
contrary, they will increase. Why? Because for a few months, or weeks, now, the
public, not just in Canada and Quebec, but in the entire western world, has
understood that trade is not the only thing that matters when it comes to
assessing support for corporations such as the Export Development Corporation,
or for agreements and international treaties.
Human and environmental considerations, as well as
considerations of democratic rights, are now vital. And this is not the first
time. It was the same with the debate on the Canada--Costa Rica free trade
agreement. The Canadian government had no suggestions to make regarding human
rights, environmental rights or democratic rights.
Frankly, Bill C-31 is just like Bill C-32. The
government is plowing ahead as though there had been no change in public
opinion in Canada and Quebec, as though the economy is more important than the
values of Canadians and Quebecers.
I was also surprised that the bill contained no
proposal to create a position of ombudsman, although this was repeatedly
recommended, both by government committees and by parliamentary
committees.
(1300)
There is therefore nothing in this bill that meets the
expectations of the Bloc Quebecois or of Canadians or Quebecers. We will
therefore have no choice but to vote against Bill C-31.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, first off I would like to thank the hon.
member for Joliette and Bloc Quebecois critic for international trade for his
comments. I would like to say, on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues, that
we will also oppose Bill C-31. We will do so for the reasons expressed very
eloquently by the member for Joliette, which I will try to explain in the few
minutes of comment allowed me in connection with third reading of this
bill.
[English]
As I said, we are opposing the bill at third reading. I
want to make it clear how profoundly disturbing and disheartening the process
was in committee with respect to the bill.
The committee took the time to hear many witnesses from
civil society, the labour movement and the NGO working group on the Export
Development Corporation. We heard witnesses from a Latin American human rights
group, a researcher for KAIROS, witnesses from Développement et Paix and many
others from the business community.
Following extensive hearings on the bill, when it came
time to reflecting the concerns and the hopes of those witnesses in the
legislation with respect to amendments, not a single amendment was accepted by
the government members on the committee. Not a comma changed in the bill from
its original presentation. Frankly this was contemptuous of the very thoughtful
concerns that were expressed by the members of the committee and by the
witnesses who appeared before the committee on its hearings.
I mentioned the NGO working group on the Export
Development Corporation, the so-called Halifax initiative. I want to read out
the names of the members of that initiative to give some sense to the House and
to those Canadians who are watching this debate of the broad diversity of
groups that made up this initiative and who were calling for significant
changes to the legislation.
The Halifax initiative working group was made up of:
the United Auto Workers Union, the Canadian Council for International
Cooperation, the Canadian Friends of Burma, the Canadian Labour Congress, the
Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights, Democracy Watch,
Development and Peace, East Timor Alert Network, the Falls Brook Centre, Rights
and Democracy, Mining Watch Canada, Project Ploughshares, Results Canada,
Sierra Club Nuclear Campaign, the Social Justice Commission of Montreal, the
Steel Workers' Humanity Fund and the West Coast Environmental Law Association.
This is a very impressive group of organizations from across the land that
appeared before the committee and put together a comprehensive brief asking for
some significant changes in the legislation.
In response to those suggestions, on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I proposed a number of amendments and
each and every one was rejected.
(1305)
[Translation]
My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois also tried to
respond to the concerns and priorities of these witnesses. His amendments were
also totally rejected by the committee.
[English]
I will now summarize the key areas of concern that were
raised in the committee with respect to Bill C-31. First is the issue of
disclosure and transparency.
The recommendations made to the committee were that the
act be amended to require the disclosure of project related information in a
timely and regular manner and that pre-approval disclosure of environmental and
social information for projects with known or potential significant adverse
impacts should have been included in Bill C-31.
The review made by Gowlings in June 1999 of the Export
Development Act, by the foreign affairs committee in December 1999 and by the
minister, all recommended that the EDC be required to disclose information
related to transactions. When we look at Bill C-31 there is not a word about
disclosure. There is not a single word about greater transparency.
In tabling the legislation and in refusing to implement
the amendments and recommendations of witnesses, the government is ignoring not
only the Gowlings report and the foreign affairs committee but the commitments
that were made previously by the minister himself.
The EDC says that it has a disclosure policy that was
implemented on October 1 of this year. It says that it has an internal
compliance officer. The fact of the matter is there is nothing at all in the
bill that requires the EDC to disclose any information whatsoever.
Historically, back in the mid-1980s, the EDC actually decided that it would
stop releasing any project related information to the public. It could do that
tomorrow under the provisions of the legislation.
It is particularly important as well that the EDC be
required to adopt pre-approval disclosure of environmental and social
information for projects that may have a significant adverse environmental or
social impact. If there is going to be any efficient environmental impact
assessment process there has to be pre-approval disclosure. This is already
part of the process under other international financial institutions such as
the IFC and the European bank for reconstruction and development. In fact, the
export credit agencies in the United States and Australia release such
information 45 to 60 days prior to approval.
This is just good practice and it is a principle of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If we look at Bill C-31 there is
absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any kind of prior disclosure or
pre-approval disclosure of environmental and social information for projects
that could have very serious impacts on the environment. Although it was not
possible to introduce an amendment to this effect because it was ruled to be
beyond the scope of the bill, I would urge the government to bring in
legislation to ensure the Export Development Corporation is fully subject to
the Access to Information Act.
The Business Development Bank, which is another crown
corporation in Canada, is already subject to the Access to Information Act.
Both of the American export credit agencies are subject to similar United
States legislation. It is totally unacceptable that a crucial question such as
transparency should simply be left up to the entire discretion of the
corporation. It should come under the umbrella of the access to information
legislation.
With respect to the issue of environmental protection,
clause 10.1 in Bill C-31 is a new clause that deals with environmental effects
but it is full of loopholes. It gives the Export Development Corporation board
total arbitrary discretion. I will read now from the section itself. It
states:
|
(c) establish exceptions specifically or by any class, as
defined by the Board, to the Corporation's obligation to make the
determination. |
That determination is with respect to adverse
environmental impacts. It could exempt an entire category without any oversight
whatsoever. This makes a mockery of any meaningful environmental assessment
under the legislation.
Instead, we proposed, along with the many NGOs that
appeared before the committee, that environmental criteria, including standards
and processes, should have been included in the legislation and that a
regulation on the environmental assessment process for the EDC should have been
developed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
(1310)
Once again, in December 1999, the foreign affairs
committee made a similar recommendation that made it very clear that there
should be far more openness to environmental criteria being included in the
legislation. No such thing was done. There is not a single word about it in
Bill C-31.
Even if the Export Development Corporation finds that a
project does have, in the words of the section, adverse environmental effects
despite the implementation of mitigation measures, the board can approve
funding for the project in any event. Even if it accepts that there will be a
significant adverse impact on the environment, it can fund a project despite
that.
When we look at some of the projects that have been
funded, such as some of the Candu reactor projects, including the Cernavoda
project in Romania and in China, we have very serious concerns about those,
just as we have concerns about the Three Gorges dam project in China and a
number of other projects that the EDC has seen fit to fund despite very
destructive environmental and social impacts. That is why we proposed those
amendments.
I would note as well that the auditor general's report
released in May was a damning indictment of the EDC's failure to implement its
own environmental framework. It had an existing environmental framework in
place but according to the auditor general's report it correctly implemented
its own internal environmental framework in only 2 out of the 26 projects that
were reviewed. That is why we as New Democrats have called for the Export
Development Corporation to be placed under the framework of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. There is litigation currently underway
challenging the decisions with respect to the Three Gorges dam. I for one hope
that the litigation ultimately will be successful.
The final area of concern is with respect to human
rights and core labour standards. We recommended in the committee, supported by
the Bloc Quebecois which made a similar recommendation, that the purpose of the
EDC be changed to include a requirement that it respond to international
business opportunities in a manner consistent with Canada's international
obligations.
Is it really such a revolutionary thing to ask that the
Export Development Corporation, which is accountable to Canadian taxpayers and
owned by the people of Canada, respect and honour the international commitments
that Canada has undertaken, whether it be the international covenant on civil
and political rights; the international covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights; our international environmental commitments; or our ILO
commitments on core labour standards?
When Warren Allmand, the director of rights and
democracy, appeared before the committee, he pointed out the same thing and
made the same recommendation, that we should be honouring and EDC should be
required to honour in its operations those international
obligations.
Here again was a recommendation of the foreign affairs
committee, the same committee that studied the bill and recommended in its
December 1999 report, of which I have a copy here, that we explicitly make
reference in the legislation to our international commitments to human rights,
core labour standards and other key areas, including the environment.
I have a copy of the press release that was issued by
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on December
16, 1999. The committee stated the following:
The Committee recommends, as an
overarching provision, adding to the Export Development Act clear Parliamentary
guidelines for EDC supported activities and transactions so as to ensure that
these both deliver benefits to Canadians and meet Canada’s international
commitments and obligations, including those related to environmentally
sustainable development and human rights. |
What happened between December 1999 and October 2001?
The same committee rejected an amendment proposé par le Bloc québécois, proposé
par moi pour le NPD.
(1315)
They rejected an amendment in the identical wording
that we had accepted and unanimously recommended in December 1999. I say shame
on the Liberal members of that committee for not being prepared to stand up for
the original recommendation that was made by their own committee.
Once again the bill is profoundly flawed in that
respect as well. There is no commitment whatsoever to honour those
international obligations and no commitment whatsoever with respect to the
important issue of establishing an ombudsperson within the EDC. For those
reasons my colleagues and I oppose the legislation.
We want to raise a broader question today. What the EDC
has said is that it is prepared to protect commercial interests. We have heard
this same argument with respect to trade deals. We know that under NAFTA
corporate interests are protected by chapter 11, the investor state provision.
We know that under the WTO the interests of patent holders and multinational
pharmaceutical companies are accepted under the so-called TRIPS agreement, even
when that has an obvious detrimental and in some cases devastating impact on
the availability of affordable drugs to fight HIV-AIDS and malaria in
sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil, India and elsewhere.
Why is it that the Liberal government and its allies in
the Canadian Alliance on this issue are prepared to defend the rights of
multinational pharmaceutical drug companies but are not prepared to defend the
basic rights of workers around the world? They are not prepared to defend the
environment, to defend indigenous peoples, to defend human rights. Why the
double standard?
I might just say parenthetically that many in
developing countries are asking why the double standard with respect to patent
rights. We have seen the spectacle of the Minister of Health recently being
prepared to override patent rights of the Bayer corporation in a minute because
of a possible threat of anthrax in Canada. Frankly we as New Democrats welcome
that decision.
People in developing countries are asking if this is
the same government that is prepared to defend the multinational pharmaceutical
companies under the TRIPS agreement when they try to say they need the right to
protect their patents on drugs to fight HIV and AIDS. What hypocrisy. What a
double standard with respect to multinational pharmaceutical companies. If it
is good enough for Canada, it is good enough for the poor in sub-Saharan
Africa, Brazil, India and around the world.
In closing I want to point to one very real, powerful,
human example as to why there has to be fundamental changes in the workings of
the EDC and why Bill C-31 falls far short of what is acceptable.
In 1999 an indigenous Embera Katio leader from
Colombia, Kimy Pernia, appeared before the foreign affairs committee. I was
there when he gave evidence. At that time he provided testimony about the
impact of the EDC supported Urra hydroelectric dam in northern Colombia. Kimy
testified eloquently before a committee about how Embera land and crops were
being flooded by the dam. Fish stocks upriver from the dam were eliminated,
robbing the Embera of the mainstay of their diet. Vast areas of stagnant water
were created, bringing mosquitoes and epidemics of malaria and dengue to Embera
communities.
Kimy testified that this dam was built without ever
consulting any of the indigenous communities living in the area that would be
affected. This was a violation at the time of both the Colombian constitution
and international human rights agreements. The EDC financed a portion of this
dam. There was no consultation whatsoever with the indigenous peoples that were
most directly affected.
Kimy also told our committee that day that speaking out
about these things would put his life in danger in Colombia and that four other
Embera leaders had already been killed by paramilitary forces for challenging
the negative impacts of that dam.
Tragically Kimy's prediction proved to be accurate. On
June 2 of this year Kimy Pernia was abducted by paramilitary gunman in
Colombia. Since then we have no way of knowing where he is. There has been
absolutely no news about his whereabouts. Since he has disappeared there have
been other killings and continued threats against Embera
communities.
(1320)
It is clear that the dam, a project the EDC chose to
invest in despite the opposition of the local indigenous communities, has
exacerbated the violence that already existed there.
That is another reason we wanted to see included in the
legislation a requirement that the EDC operate in a manner which would be
consistent with our international obligations in areas such as the universal
declaration of human rights, the UN covenants I mentioned, and the ILO
declarations on core labour standards.
If that kind of assessment had been done in Colombia
perhaps that terrible project would not have been funded. We oppose Bill C-31.
We believe that in the key areas of transparency, environmental protection and
respect for human rights core labour standards the bill falls far short. For
that reason we will be voting against the bill at third reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé
(Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon.
member for Burnaby—Douglas for his speech. His concerns for human rights date
back many years. He addressed a number of points in his speech.
Before asking my question, I would like to make some
comments. I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, a riding
in which is located a company called Davie Industries. Despite a bankruptcy
last Wednesday, there is an economic recovery project under way.
When the Minister for International Trade is questioned
about projects submitted to the EDC, he or his assistants always reply “We
cannot speak of them, because that is a crown corporation”. They are, when it
comes down to it, merely required to table an annual report in the House. There
is always the aspect of confidentiality. When the hon. member refers to the
access to information aspect, I find it vital to democracy for people to be
kept informed.
In closing, let us recall that Davie did eventually
obtain something from the EDC, the famous Spirit of Columbus platform,
after two years, when the work on it was completely done. Examination of the
project took two years. I assumed that they were probably busy looking at the
human rights aspect, and if it respected the environment, and the
like.
Finally, I realized that was not the case. It is even
worse with the changes. The corporation is not even subject to the
international treaties Canada has signed. This is inconceivable. There is
nothing in writing. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Joliette was
refused. So there is still the matter of transparency, environmental problems
and the like.
I would ask the hon. member, with his lengthy
parliamentary experience, he who says he does not understand how the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade could have changed its
mind in its report, what in his opinion are the possible responses he has in
mind that would cast some light on it for me, with my lesser experience in
foreign trade. In my opinion, it is inconceivable. The government will not give
us a reply on this.
What, according to him, are the reasons the government
side is behaving in this way, doing such an about turn in its
position?
In the space of only a few months, the committee
members changed their position, surely under someone's influence. I would like
to hear some hypotheses from him on this.
(1325)
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Madam Speaker, unfortunately I cannot answer the hon.
member's question. It is an excellent question but it should be put to the
Liberal members who sit on the committee and who completely changed their
position between December 1999 and today.
I do not know and I do not understand why they are not
prepared to accept the same recommendation. It is not revolutionary. It
provides that the EDC must comply with its international obligations regarding
the environment and human rights.
When I read the recommendations made by other
witnesses, I can only assume that major Canadian companies said that they did
not want to be forced to accept these obligations. Perhaps this is what
explains the Liberals change of attitude, since they are funded by these same
companies. As to whether the Liberals yielded to the pressure exerted by these
corporations, I do not know. Is there another answer? The question should be
put to the Liberals.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act. It makes a number of
other amendments which I will go through.
The Minister for International Trade tabled amendments
to the Export Development Act. There are a number of them, including changing
the name of the corporation to Export Development Canada. There is nothing too
substantive in that regard, but I should like to talk about some of the more
substantive changes. I should also like to spend some time at the end talking
about the Canada account.
First I will go to some of the proposed changes. One
amendment would enable the board of directors to delegate its powers and duties
to committees that it may establish other than the executive committee. Right
now 13 of the 15 board members are currently appointed by the Minister for
International Trade. The remaining two, the chairman and the president, are
appointed by the Prime Minister.
These appointments, all very partisan political
appointments, are the people responsible for formulating the current practices
of the EDC. We have political appointments. There is the patronage we have seen
in the past and now an unelected board wants to delegate its powers and duties
to one level down. I think it is incredibly questionable. Instead I would
suggest that the board should come before a parliamentary committee and be held
accountable instead of further divesting its responsibilities and powers to
another partisan appointed committee.
The 15 member board is appointed by the Prime Minister
and the Minister for International Trade, which I think is wrong. They should
be looking at its focus. Recently Patrick Lavelle, chairman of the EDC, called
for more independence for crown corporations and agencies such as the EDC,
stating the objective of naming directors should be to “get the best people, no
matter where they come from”.
Mr. Lavelle has suggested the EDC move toward
privatization, noting that there is a culture of secrecy in the government
bureaucracies, “an inherent believability in federal crowns that information is
power and increasing its release will just generate unwarranted criticism”.
We are dealing with taxpayer money. This is all about
accountability. Yes, one in four jobs in Canada is a direct result of our
exports. Some 43% of our GDP solely depends on exports. However the funding
that goes out from EDC has to be fully accountable. It has to be transparent.
When we have the chairman of the EDC saying that the
power of the federal crowns in releasing information will only generate
unwarranted criticism, we have to question where these types of things should
be addressed. Of course they have not been in this legislation.
Furthermore he is recommending that the Prime Minister
create a cabinet post that would make one minister responsible for overseeing
all crown corporations, with a parliamentary committee established to provide
oversight. On another note he mentions that crown directors should perhaps face
the same liability as private sector directors.
Of course this is coming from somebody who has worked
very closely with the EDC as the chairman and has seen this firsthand, probably
better than most. These are the types of suggestions that he has come forward
with. Yet there is no mention of any of them in the legislation. It does not
address any of these issues.
In light of Mr. Lavelle's words, the latest addition to
this haven for patronage appointment is former Senator Bernie Boudreau who was
named by the PMO last month to a plumb post as a director of the EDC. It is
just another flagrant example of patronage on the part of the
government.
(1330)
There has to be more accountability with crown
corporations, something which is evidently lacking at present.
The present government agrees that EDC should “publicly
demonstrate its accountability by reflecting the full range of public policy
concerns in its activities and should introduce appropriate transparency
measures concerning its activities”.
The Export Development Corporation is immune from
access to information because it is not covered under the act. We are dealing
with billions of dollars of taxpayer money and it is immune from any type of
access to information request to make sure that we have more
accountability.
I was going to call quorum, Madam Speaker, because I
did not see any government members. However I apologize because I see one now.
I thought I was speaking to an empty House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
I am sure the hon. member, being in his third term,
knows that we do not mention the absence or presence of any members on any side
of the House. If he would like to have a quorum call, that is his right under
the rules of the House.
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Madam Speaker, this is about accountability and
transparency. One suggestion proposed by the auditor general was that the
design and implementation of a directive be established by the board at least
once every five years. I know there will be measures in the legislation for
these type of reviews, but once every five years is not good enough. These
reviews should be more often than that, whether it is every year or two
years.
We are dealing with billions of dollars of taxpayer
money. There has to be accountability. The members board controlling the funds
are politically appointed. I am not suggesting that they are not doing a good
job in a lot of their work, but there has to be accountability.
I find it completely unacceptable that Export
Development Canada, or Export Development Corporation as it is now known, is
immune from the Access to Information Act. Nonetheless a study prepared for the
federal government found that crown corporations, including the EDC, should be
subject to access to information since access laws encourage organizations to
be “demonstrably worthy of public trust”.
The study notes that the reasons for crown
corporations, such as EDC, to be excluded from the laws are unclear and
suggests that an agency should be subject to the law if the government appoints
more than half of its governing body. As I pointed out earlier, the 50 member
board is appointed by the Minister for International Trade and the Prime
Minister.
We are looking for is greater accountability and
transparency. What has the government done with its legislation? It is now
giving powers to a politically appointed board to appoint further committees of
its choice. The committees would not be appointed by parliament nor would they
be accountable to parliament. The board would divest its responsibilities to
further the committees, and I find that completely unacceptable.
Another amendment would require the EDC to determine
whether projects would have adverse environmental affects. I acknowledge this
is important, although I question whether this is the place for that. It has an
environmental review process now, and we have to be committed to ensuring that
we protect the environment for future generations.
The mandate of the EDC is to assist Canadian
corporations with exports and access to other markets. In light of the recent
events of September 11, with an economy that is beyond fragile and that is in
serious decline, there has probably never been a more important time for EDC to
ensure it fulfills its mandate where needed.
Canada's trade with the United States is $1.4 billion
U.S. a day. I have been told that exports between Canada and the United States
are off some $200 million to $300 million a day since September 11. We are
talking 10% to 15% out of our economies, which is a huge amount. Again, if
there has ever been a time for EDC to fulfill its mandate, it is now. I see
nothing in the legislation that strengthens this area.
In May this year the report of the auditor general gave
failing grades to 24 of 26 projects backed by the Export Development
Corporation. To add insult to injury, the EDC decided it would not make public
details of three of the projects judged to have been improperly assessed under
the corporation's environmental review process.
The new environmental changes, and I understand they
are voluntary, are very questionable.
(1335)
However, it is even more telling when it comes to
accountability and transparency. The EDC unilaterally decided not to release
the details of three of these projects for “good, legitimate reasons”. That was
what we are told without know what the reasons were. We will never know any of
the details of these three projects.
Again, EDC has argued that these are business
transactions and businesses have to be protected for patent reasons or whatever
the case may be.
I would argue that these businesses are approaching a
crown corporation, in essence the taxpayer, for financial assistance for these
projects. That being the case, that changes the circumstances completely. If
they need taxpayer dollars and assistance, then they have to be accountable and
more transparent. They should be open to access to information requests. If
they have business practices or information that could hurt future business
opportunities and they does not want to divulge whatever that information may
be, maybe they should rethink asking for taxpayer money.
The crown corporation is supposedly striving to rid
itself of this secretive image. Yet it is well known for its lack of
transparency and willingness to fund projects of which other agencies stay
clear.
I want to come back to the Canada account. So people
understand, there are two accounts with Export Development Corporation, or
Export Development Canada as it will now known. There is the corporate account
to which businesses apply under the general rules. They have to have proper
credit ratings to meet those practices.
Then there is the Canada account, also known as the
political account. This is for companies that would not qualify under the
corporate account. If they do not have the right credit risk, the right
business plans or whatever it may be to access funds from the corporate
account, they go to the Canada account. The Canada account is basically a
cabinet account where the Government of Canada interferes and advises the EDC
that it would like something approved.
There have been some examples. Again, the most obvious
one, and the public is aware of it because it has been in the press, is the
recent Bombardier transactions to the tune of $3.7 billion in loan guarantees.
In fairness to the government, they were not actual subsidies but loan
guarantees.
Admittedly, Bombardier was facing unfair business
practices. It was at risk of losing to Embraer, which was engaging in unfair
trade practices. It was important to Canada and our economy that we maintain
these jobs in Canada and that Bombardier continue to be a world leader in the
manufacture of regional aircraft. As a result of September 11, there is even a
greater market for smaller regional aircraft.
The point I am making is that there are many other
industries that face unfair trade practices. Probably right now no other
industry has more problems than the softwood lumber industry. It is facing
unfair trade practices, not unlike Bombardier did with Embraer. Trade tariffs
of 19.3% are being imposed on the industry by the U.S. administration. The case
has been to various international trade tribunals on three separate occasions.
Canada has won every single time. However, through U.S. domestic legislative,
these tariffs have been imposed on the softwood industry in Canada.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that 45% of that
industry is in British Columbia or over $10 billion a year. When we add that
kind of tariff, we are talking over $1 billion a year out of the British
Columbia economy alone.
(1340)
Tomorrow we will be hit with the anti-dumping tariff.
Canada has one industry that is getting loan guarantees under the EDC Canada
account and I understand why. However tens of thousands of jobs, and the number
is probably in the area of 40,000 to 50,000, in the softwood lumber industry
right across Canada have been lost. Those people are getting absolutely no
assistance from the government.
The government granted the $2.1 billion loan guarantee
under the Canada account for the Air Wisconsin deal. In January I asked the
minister if this was a new policy of the government. When an industry in Canada
is faced with unfair trade practices, I asked him if the government would start
providing subsidies or loan guarantees or match the unfair trade practices.
Using the words of the government, I was told that all it was going to do was
match the unfair trade practices of Brazil. That begs the question, does that
become the policy of the government? I do not think that is the best policy.
Right now the forest industry in Canada is facing
horrific job losses. We are told that tomorrow it is going to be faced with an
anti-dumping suit anywhere from 5% to 15% on top of the 19.3%. The forest
industry is facing somewhere between a 25% and 35% tariff. This issue has been
through international trade tribunals and Canada has won every time. We have
heard the minister say time and time again that officials are meeting with our
American friends to the south on the issue. The reality is that this process
could take two or three years and there will be no forest industry left in
British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada for that matter. The industry will be
struggling to stay alive.
I stress that the Canada account is very political. In
summary we will not be supporting this legislation primarily because it does
absolutely nothing to deal with the issue of accountability and transparency.
This crown corporation spends billions of taxpayers' dollars. It has a budget
in the billions of dollars and has control over where the money goes. It is
immune from access to information. That needs to change. The government thought
it more important to change the name rather than bring about accountability and
transparency. We believe that is wrong and we will be voting against
it.
(1345)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on
Bill C-31.
The bill deals with changes to the Export Development
Act and the Export Development Corporation and the way we help our exporters
participate in the global economy we now find ourselves in. Unfortunately as we
all know the economy of the country and the economy of the world have been
taking a bit of a knock on the head since September 11 and perhaps even before
that.
Any time September 11 is mentioned we think of those
who suffered and died in New York and Washington. We should never make light of
what happened there. However it does have some ongoing effects on our economy
and these are things we have to discuss.
The Minister of Finance is going to have to bring down
a budget soon. He is trying to stay away from that awful D word, the deficit.
Perhaps it will be looming large again in our vocabulary but we certainly hope
not.
The Export Development Corporation's role is to help
small, medium and large exporters obtain sales abroad for Canadian goods and
Canadian services. To ensure that our Canadian suppliers get paid, they can
obtain insurance through the Export Development Corporation to guarantee that
they will get payment. On a normal transaction that is not a bad thing. We
ensure many different things these days. We wonder why it has to be a crown
corporation that does that and not the private sector.
It used to be that mortgages had to be insured by the
government and then the private sector took over that. Why can we not think
about allowing the private sector to do it in the export market as well? That
of course would bring to bear what is called the Canada account.
The member who spoke previously talked about the Canada
account which is a political account. Team Canada sometimes likes to slide all
those great big sales that it announces to justify its trips around the world
through the Export Development Corporation. In the final analysis sometimes
Canadian taxpayers end up picking up the tab not only for the trip around the
world but also for those great sales promotions that team Canada said it had
achieved but it did not quite work out that way.
I would like to think that we would get away from these
politically motivated deals. The governor in council, the cabinet, can dictate
to the corporation saying it has signed a deal to sell a Candu reactor to some
rather nefarious country it would rather not deal with but it is good for
Canadian jobs. It tells the corporation to sign the deal and guarantees the
deal. Lo and behold if sometime later something goes wrong and we do not get
paid, the Canadian taxpayer gets to pick up the tab.
It works in much the same way as the Canadian Wheat
Board which sells wheat and grain around the world all guaranteed by the
Government of Canada. When we look at the financial statements of the Canadian
Wheat Board, it has never had a bad debt since it started. The Government of
Canada pays every bad debt that it incurs. We never know exactly how much that
is costing us. The wonderful statements made by the wheat board say, “Don't
worry. We get paid”. It is the Canadian taxpayer who quite often pays for the
wheat that we presumably sell elsewhere.
Part of the bill deals with trying to require the
Export Development Corporation to build in some environmental criteria. We
recognize that the environmental laws are different in different parts of the
world. To apply a Canadian standard and say that we are not going to finance a
project in country x unless it meets a Canadian environmental standard
may be totally inappropriate. The environmental standards would be different in
that country and there would be a total mismatch of rules and regulations and
the whole thing would fall apart. It is going to require the Export Development
Corporation to try to develop some criteria to ensure that not only the country
involved but all the inhabitants of the world benefit and that the environment
does not suffer too dramatically because of the project that is being
anticipated.
(1350)
The auditor general's report produced in May 2001, just
a few months ago, reports on the Export Development Corporation and its
environmental review framework. That is what the bill talks about in some
degree.
On page 5 the report talks about the important gaps in
public consultation and disclosure. We are talking about a crown corporation. A
crown corporation is owned by the taxpayers and has to report to the taxpayers.
On the first page of part 1 the auditor general says there are important gaps
in public consultation and disclosure. That is right at the front.
That is typical of the government. Every time we turn
around there is something it is trying to hide, be it the shawinigate papers we
could not get our hands on, or just yesterday I was reading in the newspaper
how the privacy commissioner is trying to get a hold of the Prime Minister's
agenda, not the contents of what he discussed, but whom he met with. Even that
is a state secret. It is little wonder that the Export Development Corporation
is saying that it wants to be part of the same mould.
The auditor general is right in saying that the elite
of the corporation will have to act quickly to address issues of transparency
and that there is lack of policies and procedures at the project level to
govern public consultation and disclosure of environmental information. These
are serious allegations. The auditor general, our officer of parliament, is
saying it is time for EDC to wake up and start being more open and transparent
and tell us what it is actually doing because we the taxpayers are the
shareholders.
In paragraph 10 on page 6 under the heading “Is the
framework operating effectively?” the auditor general says:
In most cases we found significant
differences between the framework design and its operation. In those cases,
employees seem to have viewed the framework more as a guidance, to be
interpreted according to the circumstances of each project, than as an
important risk management tool that they were expected to apply. |
Who is minding the store? If there is no openness and
transparency, the institution of parliament which is supposed to be holding it
to account does not have the information. Therefore we cannot do our job
properly and it gets away with anything it wants to get away with.
Paragraph 22 on page 8 states:
Unlike federal departments and
agencies, the Export Development Corporation is not subject to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act or to the Access to Information Act. Unlike
private sector financial institutions, it is not subject to regulation by the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, does not pay income
tax, is not required to pay dividends, and can borrow at favourable rates on
the credit of the Government of Canada. |
If it can do all those things, we would think the least
it could do is tell us what it is up to so we could keep an eye on what the
organization is doing. But we all know that transparency is not the watch word
of the government.
Paragraph 27 on transparency, public disclosure and
accountability states:
The government acknowledged that the
information the corporation currently discloses provides few details.
|
What are we really trying to do here? Are we a
dictatorship or are we an open democracy? I thought we were an open democracy.
It goes on to state:
It noted, however, that the
corporation was making significant strides toward making more information on
its activities available to the public. |
Well, we are still waiting. The litany continues on. In
paragraph 34 which deals with developing a framework for risk management it
states:
To provide the public with a better
understanding of the corporation's environmental practices. Although the
corporation had been assessing environmental risks of projects for some time,
it had not kept the public informed on the nature or extent of its
analysis. |
(1355)
We are right back to square one. Whatever it wants to
do it does behind closed doors. It does it incompetently or not at all. As long
as the taxpayer is kept in the dark it thinks it is home free.
That is not the way it should be. Given that it relied
on the environmental information provided by project proponents for its risk
assessments, the corporation needed to communicate to participants what
information it required and how it would be used.
Going through the report, there are many instances of
problems in the organization. In paragraph 56 at page 14 the auditor general
points out that there are important gaps in public consultation and disclosure.
It states:
The key gaps in the design of the
Corporation's Framework are in transparency-- |
Through the entire report transparency or the lack
thereof is the key. The organization needs serious review to open itself up to
the public. It needs reform.
The Speaker:
The hon. member for St. Albert has great prescience. He
will have, however, nine minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks
when the debate on this matter is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Tobacco
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the federal government,
especially Health Canada, to continue its fight against tobacco. In particular
we must prevent young people from becoming addicted. All the evidence shows
that those who try tobacco when young are likely to be addicted for life.
Addicted young people will live shortened lives. Forty-five thousand premature
deaths occur each year from the smoking of tobacco.
Canada's new tobacco labelling regulations have been
widely praised by the international community. The products information
labelling regulations passed by the House are the strongest in the world.
Let us fully implement this new health warning system
and help all those working to reduce tobacco use in communities across Canada
including Peterborough.
* * *
(1400)
Prostate Cancer
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today is PSA day on the Hill so there are
bowls of walnuts in the opposition and government lobbies, a reminder to male
MPs, senators, staff and the media that they can go to room 200 in the West
Block until 4 p.m. today for a PSA blood test which can detect prostate
cancer.
I remind the front benches on both sides of the House
that ministers, critics and leaders of the opposition parties, including the
Bloc Quebecois, are not immune to prostate cancer. This cancer which affects
one man in eight does not care which party we belong to or where we are in the
pecking order.
Thanks to Abbott Diagnostics which is supplying the
staff and materials for the PSA testing, and to internationally recognized
prostate cancer researcher Dr. Yves Fradet who gave today's seminar, we have
had a unique opportunity to become better informed about this life threatening
disease.
Mr. Speaker, do not let me find out tomorrow that you
did not go for your test today. It is in room 200 in the West Block until 4
p.m.
* * *
Communities in Bloom
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take this opportunity to
congratulate the city of Charlottetown for placing first in the national
Communities in Bloom competition.
Prince Edward Island's capital city, the birthplace of
Confederation, was recently awarded this prize in recognition of the city's
effort to improve civic pride, environmental responsibility and beautification
through the participation of both the residential and business
communities.
The Communities in Bloom program, run by a not for
profit organization, has Canadian municipalities compete with similar size
cities in improving such areas as heritage conservation, environmental effort,
community involvement, and landscaping and floral arrangement.
Judges of the Communities in Bloom program indicated
they were most impressed with the involvement at all levels within the
community and Charlottetown's efforts to maintain history through various
heritage initiatives. As a result of the efforts of all residents Charlottetown
is now recognized as one of the most beautiful and clean municipalities in
Canada and has been given the prestigious Five Blooms designation.
City staff and citizens of both the business and
residential districts should be proud that their dedication and hard work have
earned Canada's birthplace of Confederation the national first place
Communities in Bloom title.
* * *
[Translation]
Jean-Marc Ouellet
Mrs. Marlene Jennings
(Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned
of the death, last Friday, of Jean-Marc Ouellet, at the age of 60.
Mr. Ouellet was a loyal employee of the Senate for over
ten years. He held the positions of bus driver and messenger. The funeral
service was held this morning.
It is hard to lose a loved one.
My colleagues and I wish to offer our deepest
condolences to his wife, Joyce Hatley, his daughter Lynn, his son Michael, and
all his friends and relatives.
I hope that each one of you will be comforted by the
memory of good times spent with him.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, sulphur dioxide pollution from the
shipping industry is a major contributor to acidification of waters and rain.
In the waters around Denmark it is estimated that emissions from ships are
twice those of the country's land based sources.
Many European countries are putting in place a system
of dues at ports, differentiated according to the ship's environmental
performance. For example, ships entering Hamburg harbour are granted a 12%
rebate on dues if they meet pre-established environmental requirements such as
using low sulphur bunker oil, showing they produce lower sulphur emissions or
using paints free of poisonous tributyl tin.
These port dues rebates are significant. They are an
incentive for the shipping industry to clean up its act. I urge the Minister of
Transport to adopt such incentives and thus reduce pollution from cruise, cargo
and other types of ships.
* * *
(1405)
Terrorism
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a grave
danger contained in the government's anti-terrorism bill. The bill defines
terrorist activity in such a way that criminal prosecution would begin to focus
on the underlying beliefs of terrorists. The bill singles out crimes committed
for political, religious, or ideological purposes.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Our justice system must
judge actions, not religions or ideologies. An act of violence does not become
any more or less an act of violence because it was committed for religious or
ideological purposes or for any purpose whatsoever. Our justice system does not
prosecute motive, specifically in order to preserve Canadians' rights of
religious observation, their right to belong to political parties and their
right to freely believe what they believe.
The law should be hard on those who commit terrorist
acts, but when we begin to prosecute personal thought we erode the very
freedoms we are seeking to protect. Thought crime is a dangerous path that we
ought not to follow.
* * *
E-Commerce
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the knowledge economy the race goes to
the quick. The ability to take advantage of the opportunities that the new
information and communication technologies enable will determine the winners in
this global competition.
Canada, with its relatively small, well educated
population, high degree of connectivity and overall sophistication in the use
of these tools, has an unparalleled opportunity to lead the world. In addition
to computers and networks, businesses need the tools that allow them to move
quickly in this new market.
Today I am pleased to draw the attention of the House
to the SourceCAN initiative of Industry Canada. It is a state of the art online
service that allows small Canadian businesses to access vastly increased
international markets while at the same time reducing the costs of doing
business online. SourceCAN is one of the tools by which Canada will reach its
goal of 5% of worldwide e-commerce.
I congratulate the staff at Industry Canada and all the
people involved in this important initiative.
* * *
[Translation]
Trade Disputes
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has
been refused the right to appear as a party at the hearing involving United
Parcel Service's lawsuit against the federal government.
United Parcel Service has launched a $230 million
lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that its rights as a foreign
investor have been harmed by Canada Post.
An international tribunal, whose rules are not based on
Canadian law, will examine the case, taking into consideration the rules for
settling a trade dispute set out in NAFTA's controversial chapter
11.
Yet, last summer at the meeting of the NAFTA
commission, the Minister for International Trade expressed his delight at the
measures taken to clarify the provisions of this chapter. He said “We want the
process for settling disputes between an investor and a state, which is
provided for in NAFTA, to be as open and transparent as possible”.
The minister will have to explain what he means to the
45,000 Canada Post workers whose views are not being heard.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Youth
Conference
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the National Aboriginal
Youth Conference took place in Edmonton. Aboriginals are the fastest growing
segment of the Canadian population. That is why it is vital to hear the voices
of First Nations, Inuit and Metis young people.
The hon. Secretary of State for Children and Youth
spoke at the conference which brought together youth from across the country as
well as members of national aboriginal organizations. The findings from the
conference will assist in implementing the national aboriginal youth strategy.
They will be presented in December to a meeting of national aboriginal leaders
and the ministers of aboriginal affairs.
This conference provided a valuable forum to hear
directly from aboriginal youth about the issues that concern them.
* * *
1972 Election
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise
today to mark the 29th anniversary of the 1972 election held on October 30 of
that year.
There are only five members of parliament elected or
re-elected in that election who still serve here today. The Right Hon. Prime
Minister, the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and the hon. member for Davenport were
re-elected that year. Today there are only two MPs who were first elected that
year: the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and I.
Then as now I was a proud member of the official
opposition. In fact the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and I both served
in the same caucus under the leadership of Mr. Stanfield. Then as now the
centre right was split in the House of Commons, with the Conservatives as the
official opposition and the Social Credit Party here also.
There is an old saying that those who forget the past
are doomed to repeat it. The lessons of those years are not lost on me, and I
would venture to say they are not lost on the Prime Minister or the Deputy
Prime Minister.
However I hope that my colleague and fellow classmate
from 1972, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, remembers those lessons
too and will not become the Réal Caouette of 2001 or allow his party to become
the true inheritors of the Social Credit legacy in this place.
In closing, I thank the voters of British Columbia for
sending me to this place that year and in three subsequent
elections.
* * *
(1410)
Fallen Heroes Fund
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the London Professional
Fire Fighters Association, its president Brian George and its vice-president
Jim Holmes in my hometown of London, Ontario, for raising over $285,000 so far
for the Fallen Heroes Fund.
Every cent of the money raised will go to the New York
Fire Fighters 911 Disaster Relief Fund. This fund helps the families of fallen
firefighters, police and emergency personnel who lost husbands, fathers and
sons in the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
The London fire fighters and I would also like to thank
the advertising and promotional assistance of the Corus Group, major
corporations, small businesses, schools, groups, individuals and organizations,
as well as kids who broke open their piggy banks to contribute. Without their
kindness and generosity this could not have been possible. The thoughtfulness
of Londoners will never be forgotten.
* * *
Energy
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the benefits we can
derive from wind power. Canada has the ability to produce more wind power than
any country in the world.
In spite of that the federal government, while pumping
billions into the nuclear and oil industries over the years, has contributed
relatively little to the development of wind power in Canada.
Europe and the U.S. provide substantial financial
incentives to both producers and consumers of alternate energy. Canada does
relatively nothing. Ironically many of the investors in the growing U.S. market
are Canadian companies.
It is time for the government to join other developed
countries to embrace wind energy and provide the financial incentives and
investments needed for this valuable renewable energy source to flourish in
this country.
* * *
[Translation]
Délégation Générale du Québec in
Paris
Mr. Richard Marceau
(Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of my colleagues in
the Bloc Quebecois to draw to your attention the 40th anniversary of the
Délégation générale du Québec in Paris.
Quebec's representation in the city of light bears
witness to the special relationship between Quebecers and their French cousins.
In matters of culture, business, education or tourism, the Délégation générale
du Québec in Paris promotes and spreads Quebec culture in France.
Such is its importance that the members of the
delegation were the first representatives of a non sovereign state to enjoy the
privileges and diplomatic immunity normally reserved for sovereign countries.
This points to the importance of our mutually beneficial
relationship.
Be it through the Office franco-québécois pour la
jeunesse, the Association Québec-France, the thousands of French students who
have studied in Quebec and the thousands of Quebecers, myself included, who
have completed their education in France or the annual summits of our first
ministers, to give but a few examples, our two peoples are showing the entire
world the special place we hold in each other's heart.
* * *
[English]
Yukon
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great anticipation. Many
members have noticed a new dynamism in the north. One foundation of this is the
Yukon devolution transfer agreement which the government has tabled
today.
The transfer agreement sets out the terms and
conditions for transferring the administration and control over lands and
resources from the Government of Canada to the government of Yukon. It will
soon be followed by legislation to implement these changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on this day, I am proud to be the member
for Yukon.
[English]
The government has worked hard to bring devolution to
this point. Yukoners will soon be able, as other Canadians, to make decisions
locally regarding their land and resources.
The DTA contains provisions to ensure that devolution
does not abrogate or derogate from the aboriginal, treaty or other rights of
first nations or any fiduciary obligations of the crown to aboriginal people
derived from treaties, constitutional provisions, legislation, common law or
express undertakings.
This is an important day for all Yukoners and all
Canadians. I hope the House will join me in saluting everyone who worked so
hard on this agreement.
* * *
Trade
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, two sugar refineries have closed in Canada
and more will be closing out west if action is not taken now.
Bill C-32, the act to implement the free trade
agreement with Costa Rica, cannot be viewed in isolation of the North American
and global context since it would provide Costa Rica with substantial immediate
duty free access and a phase out of Canada's refined sugar tariff.
The reciprocal provisions in the agreement would not
provide Canadian sugar with any commercial export opportunity. Sugar should be
excluded from such regional negotiations to prevent further job losses and
refinery closures in Canada. The sugar deal with Costa Rica will set a
precedent with upcoming negotiations with Central America.
Canada's sugar market is already the most open in the
world. Our sugar industry does not depend on any domestic or export subsidies
or other trade distorting policies. Our modest 8% tariff is important until the
big players including the U.S. and EU reform their sugar policies. What is in
question is not free trade but fair trade.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, two former deputy ministers of
immigration, one of them being Tom Kent, a former key adviser to Prime
Ministers Trudeau and Pearson, are saying that the 1985 Singh decision of the
supreme court has been a disaster for our refugee system. The Singh decision
gives anyone who can put their toe onto Canadian soil the same charter rights
as a Canadian citizen. That leads to long delays and backlogs for genuine
refugee claimants.
Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he was in
Washington last month, said this decision needs to be reviewed. Does the Prime
Minister agree with deputy ministers Tom Kent and Jack Manion and his own
Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Singh decision must be changed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy with the question because there
is at this moment, in front of committees, debate about the security of the
nation and the changes in the laws. The debate can go on there.
Of course we want to have a good system of refugee laws
in Canada. At the same time we do not want anybody to use the refugee system to
abuse Canadian hospitality.
In fact we have two committees that at this time are
looking at these laws. We welcome the suggestions that could come from these
committees.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the committee. I am asking
the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Two former deputy ministers of immigration and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs have acknowledged the need for the Singh decision
to be changed. As it stands, it allows all refugee claimants the same rights of
appeal as Canadian citizens.
Why does the Prime Minister not overturn this decision,
which is a threat to our security and of no help whatsoever to true
refugees?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a Prime Minister or a government cannot
reverse a court decision. The decision has been handed down.
Is it the legislation that needs changing, then? That
is what I have just said. The House of Commons has bills before it aimed at
addressing this country's security problems.
I would therefore invite hon. members to express their
opinions to the committee and we shall take them under advisement.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs a little
briefing. There are at least two cases working their way to the supreme court
that could have the government making a statement on this before the supreme
court in a legitimate way.
Millions of refugees are stuck in camps around the
world. Canada only accepts 7,300 a year, but there are another 35,000 refugees
who come here, 40% coming from the United States. They impose themselves on us.
Many do not have documents and are a criminal or a security risk.
When will the government make genuine refugees a
priority and deal more directly with those who are a security risk?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what Bill C-11, the new
immigration and refugee protection act, does. It gives us the ability to
streamline our procedures, so that those who are in genuine need of our
protection will be welcomed in Canada more quickly and those who are not in
need of protection will be able to be removed more quickly.
That streamlining is extremely important. I wish the
Leader of the Opposition would understand that this is exactly what we are
trying to do.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the very same top bureaucrat had this to
say about Bill C-11 before the Senate, and I quote, “it should be scrapped and
started from scratch”.
This top bureaucrat also calls for restoration of the
safe third country rule so we do not have refugees coming from a safe
country.
Why does this minister not clean up the mess in our
refugee determination system?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to suggest for a minute
that the system we have in place today does not need change. In fact it does.
That is why we have brought in a streamlined procedure which is presently
before the Senate.
I say to the member opposite that the existing
legislation as well as the new legislation allows for negotiations of a stage
for a bilateral agreement. Certainly he would not ask us to impose that
unilaterally on the United States, particularly at this time when the concerns
are security concerns.
We know that 40% of refugee claimants come from the
United States, but we have to negotiate with them before we can--
(1420)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this top bureaucrat who has been around
the immigration and refugee system for 26 years has another very interesting
quote. He says that the system for screening newcomers, and I quote, “is a
shocking and scandalous mess”. That is in this minister's
department.
The sad thing about it is that this mess bothers every
legitimate immigrant and every needy refugee. Will the minister clean up the
mess?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
In fact, Mr. Speaker, while we are making significant
changes, what we have done is implement intensified security screening. At the
present time those interviews are taking three to four hours. We identify
people, we fingerprint them, and if we have any concerns about their risk to
national security they are detained.
Rather than just taking the quote from someone who was
a servant a long time ago who worked for the government, I would like to
suggest that the member hear what Commissioner Zaccardelli said this morning.
He said that the notion that we are a safe haven is absolutely
wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we must take all appropriate means at the
military, humanitarian and diplomatic levels to continue to fight terrorism.
Now that the bombings in Afghanistan have almost reached their limit, it seems
that a second phase of military operations is about to begin with the
deployment of ground troops.
Before launching this second phase of the conflict in
Afghanistan, does the Prime Minister not believe that coalition members must
determine together the effective military means that will allow us to make
progress in the fight against terrorism?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are no Canadian military personnel
taking part in the ongoing operations in Afghanistan at present. We have daily
contacts with U.S. army officers. It goes without saying that decisions are
made on a daily basis. I do not know when we will enter a new phase of
operations. Right now, the United States is still relying on air strikes. It
may deploy ground troops some day.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in order for the international coalition
to remain united and for the response to terrorism to be effective, both of
which are dependent on each other, the situation in Afghanistan must be
assessed at the United Nations.
Is Canada prepared to take its diplomatic
responsibilities and exert pressure on its allies so that discussions can be
held at the United Nations on how to continue military operations, before the
beginning of the next phase, instead of being consulted only after the
fact?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we are consulting with the
U.S. government on this issue.
I have just returned from China, where we had a meeting
of all APEC heads of government. We discussed the current situation and
everyone agreed that we must continue the fight against terrorism.
As for the means that should be taken, it is the United
States that was attacked on September 11 and that is responding right now. We
offered our co-operation. As I just mentioned, there are no Canadian troops in
Afghanistan right now.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already asked us to
show patience and wisdom. Now that the conflict seems to be moving into a
second phase, and the number of warning bells are increasing, is it not
becoming increasingly important for the coalition forces to consult one
another?
Will the Prime Minister admit that the wisdom of which
he spoke demands that the coalition parties take stock of the situation before
taking action, and that they do so now under the UN's supervision?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the security
council passed a resolution on September 12 saying that the Americans had the
right to retaliate because they had been attacked by the terrorists. Since
then, the U.S. has been acting within the terms of the UN
resolution.
As for consulting the coalition, we are speaking with
the Americans. We have officials in the United States who are speaking daily
with top American officials. I know there are representatives of Britain,
Australia and probably of France and Germany. There are daily consultations
with the allies.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given all our expressions of solidarity
with the Americans, we can also tell them that the military actions in
Afghanistan will not affect just the United States.
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, who recently
began a tour of various Middle Eastern capitals, sees the difficulties of the
coalition.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of
Foreign Affairs intends to use his tour to promote a meeting under UN auspices
before the second phase of the campaign is launched?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is
currently touring several Middle Eastern countries, where he is trying to
convince everyone that we must first fight terrorism and then try to find
diplomatic solutions to all the conflicts. I think this is the Canadian
position right now.
Is there an immediate need for a debate in the UN
General Assembly? I do not know whether this is necessary right now because the
security council has already passed a resolution authorizing the activities of
the American troops and of members of the coalition.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister as
well.
Canadians want to understand Canada's role in shaping
strategy for the current campaign in Afghanistan. For example, the U.S. is
dropping cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are like landmines, a lethal weapon
killing innocent civilians, particularly children, something that Canada has
strongly opposed in the past.
Did Canada approve of the use of cluster bombs? Was
Canada even consulted on the use of cluster bombs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the generals of the United
States to call us every morning to ask us at what time they should go.
They are in a war operation at this time. They did not
want to be there at all. If the terrorists who are hiding in Afghanistan had
not done what they did on September 11 there would be no need for any kind of
bomb. I hope that this leader will understand that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do want to know what role Canada
plays. They want to know whether the meaning of coalition is that every partner
has a say. Is that not the point of a coalition?
Yet in Afghanistan it appears that the United States
alone seems to be making the decisions about strategy, about tactics and about
targets.
What is Canada's role? Does Canada have a say? Does
Canada have any voice at all or are we just there to take orders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be very naive to
believe that every morning all the prime ministers and the leaders would have
to consult and decide how many bombs would be dropped today. It does not work
like that.
A coalition is not easy and it does not mean that they
have to consult on every step.
It is kind of difficult to run a coalition. The member
has only to look to the left of herself in the House of Commons.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the attorney general of the United States
has deliberately warned that there could be more terrorist attacks this
week.
Canadian police say that Toronto has been a centre for
al-Qaeda activity and that as many as five followers of Osama bin Laden may be
charged.
Does CSIS have any information confirming that there is
a new potential for terrorist attacks in Canada over the next week? Has that
information gone to law enforcement agencies across Canada and will the Prime
Minister tell parliament the plan for co-operation among law
enforcement--
(1430)
The Speaker:
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no information of that nature has been
received by CSIS and the RCMP at this time. We are not under any special threat
at this moment. I think we are all the time on an alert basis because there is
always a danger, but there is no specific threat against Canadians at this
moment.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I assume the Prime Minister takes enough
time to read the newspapers. He would have seen the report by the attorney
general of the United States.
Did he ask for information as to whether or not the
information that caused the attorney general to warn Americans about an attack
this week is information that should cause Canadians to be careful about an
attack this week?
If he did his duty, what is his government doing to
protect Canadians from a potential attack here in Canada this week?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime
Minister, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to disappoint the leader
of the coalition of the corner. There is no special threat against Canada at
this time.
I am not going to be mad because Canada is not under a
special threat, but I understand that the leader of the corner is mad all the
time.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, President Bush is now taking steps toward
a common security perimeter with Canada and Mexico. He wants greater harmony in
customs procedures, including a shared database of foreign nationals entering
each country. Such a system will give all three countries early warning of
potentially dangerous travellers.
Will the minister assure the House today that Canada
will fully co-operate with the implementation of such a plan?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said many times in the House, we
started to reform the customs system a long time ago in Canada. What we are
looking at is putting in place a much better risk management system using more
technology.
As I said, customs has to be seen as an economic
development tool. It has to be effective and efficient for the Canadian
population as a whole and businesses as well. We have started to co-operate
with the states. I will be in Washington, D.C., on Thursday in order to
increase that co-operation. We have started to harmonize in some places like
the Nexus program which I visited yesterday.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in order for business in this country
going south to be effective, security has to be a priority. The Americans have
walked away from harmonization talks in the past but they have just put a plan
on the table that is in the best interests of Canadian security and the
Canadian economy.
Will the minister stop this political posturing and for
once act in the best interests of Canadians by agreeing to President Bush's
proposal?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not know
what the customs action plan is all about.
As I have said many times, we are dealing with big
volumes on a daily and yearly basis. In order to make sure we are able to
fulfill our dual mandate, which is the protection of Canadian society and
keeping the border open for trade, we need to use more technology. Using more
technology will give us a safer society. We will also make sure businesses keep
growing in this country.
* * *
[Translation]
International Aid
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government announced that it
would be supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion on increased international aid.
As we know, assistance for the suffering populations must be an ongoing
concern.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm that international
aid is among his concerns and that he will be including funds for this in his
coming budget?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the hon. member, I am
not the Minister of Finance but I can answer his question.
This government has demonstrated its commitment to
international development. If the hon. member were to examine the last budget,
he would see that we have increased our international aid by $435 million over
three years. If he were to take a look at this year's throne speech, he would
see that this government has again committed to increasing our international
aid.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, even CIDA, with its specific mandate of
meeting the need for international aid, considers that the additional $16
million invested by the government in Afghanistan is clearly inadequate.
That being the case, does the government plan to
promote humanitarian aid within a multilateral approach under UN auspices, and
to allocate the necessary funds to it?
(1435)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to giving $16
million in aid to Afghanistan.
Since we have made this commitment, that is $1 million
on September 29, another $5 million thereafter, followed by $10 million on
October 17, we have both committed these amounts and delivered on
them.
* * *
[English]
Immigration
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Syrian Hassan Almrei was granted refugee
status in Canada last year based on a fake United Arab emirate passport and a
Canadian visa that he purchased for $5,000. He claimed that he feared
persecution because his father was a member of the Muslim brotherhood in Syria.
The fact is the Muslim brotherhood is a well-known
terrorist group that assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981.
My question is for the immigration minister. Why is
having a terrorist in the family grounds for refugee status here in
Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite keeps putting facts
out that are inaccurate and wrong. They are then picked up by other people who
repeat them like they are true.
I would suggest that what he do is remember that his
title is a member of the loyal opposition and he should not be sending the
message to people that they are admissible to Canada if they have a criminal
record or if they pose a security threat, because they are not.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is this person was given refugee
status in our country because his father was a member of a terrorist
group.
The Canadian Alliance has been the strongest proponent
for genuine refugees but the minister's poor screening has given refugees all a
bad name in the country, and that is not acceptable to the loyal
opposition.
Does the immigration minister think she did the right
thing in giving refugee status based on family membership in a terrorist
group?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that decisions
are made by the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board, a quasi-judicial body.
Where we disagree with those opinions they are appealed to the courts.
Any persons applying for refugee status who uses fraud
or misrepresentation, or are found to be inadmissible to Canada because they
pose a security risk or have a criminal record, we take appropriate action to
remove them from the country as quickly as possible. The member opposite knows
that.
* * *
[Translation]
Finance
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has the
unfortunate habit of underestimating government surpluses in order to make his
life easier and avoid having to justify his budget choices to parliament and
his own caucus.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that, for the
first five months of the current fiscal year, his department's figures
establish the accumulated surplus at $11.1 billion, whereas, for the next seven
months, the most pessimistic scenarios predict an additional $2.5 billion, for
a total of $13.6 billion in manoeuvring room?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as of July we had a
surplus of over $11 billion.
That said, the member must know, if he has not
realized, that the economy was slowing down before September 11. After the
11th, it must be said that the attacks on the World Trade Center had a
significant effect on the Canadian and American economies.
That said, there is no doubt that the surpluses will
shrink, and, unfortunately, substantially.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, naturally we are taking these slowdowns
into account. The figure for the next seven months is $2.5 billion, whereas it
was over $11 billion in the first five months. We are not crazy.
We must have a clear plan in this House. Will the
Minister of Finance admit that we in the Bloc have already presented a clear,
targeted and deficit free plan that responds to the situation and supports the
economy and employment?
He should use it, and for once have the wisdom to
listen to us.
(1440)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if the member is so proud of his plan,
perhaps he should present it to the Standing Committee on Finance, of which he
is a member. I look forward with enthusiasm to the report.
I also suggest the member submit his plan to Ms.
Marois, who is to present her budget on November 1.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister just
told the House, police authorities say that Toronto is a staging ground for
al-Qaeda terrorists and that they have a stunning amount of evidence to prove
it, including five suspects and more to come.
I would ask the solicitor general, in the face of
intelligence information showing terrorist activity, such as fundraising,
recruiting and counterfeiting of documents taking place in Toronto, how can he
still deny any Canadian connection to the attack on America?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, is my hon. colleague asking me if there is
a direct connection with what happened on September 11? If that is the member's
question, the answer is, no.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, CSIS has told the federal court that it
believes there are supporters of bin Laden and his terrorist network here in
Canada now. A proper and more thorough investigation of Al-Marabh in June may
have revealed this fact and exposed key evidence regarding the September 11
attack on America.
Our Prime Minister says that there is no imminent
attack but we know that bin Laden's terrorists are here in Canada
now.
Given the glaring evidence of CSIS and the RCMP, why
should Canadians trust the solicitor general with their security and their
safety?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times in the House
that there are people involved in terrorist groups in this country. Let there
be no illusions, there are people in this country who belong to terrorist
groups.
My hon. colleague asked why he should trust me. Who he
should trust are the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and CSIS who
do an excellent job of making sure this country remains one of the safest
countries in the world today.
* * *
Lumber Industry
Mr. Robert Bertrand
(Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Sun reported today
that the Government of Canada will be providing up to $5.3 million to encourage
Canadian lumber exports to China.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House
why the government is focusing on China and how this money will be
spent?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Sun may have jumped
the gun a bit but the information is essentially accurate.
This Canada-China wood products initiative will help
Canada take advantage of emerging markets in China and lessen our dependence
upon American markets. All regions of the country will benefit from this
initiative, with expected participation from several wood products associations
across the country. The momentum toward this was substantially assisted last
week by the Prime Minister's visit to Shanghai.
The money will be used for promotional activities,
market studies, technical work on codes and standards, and worker training. It
will be delivered by Natural Resources Canada in co-operation with the
distinguished minister for--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.
* * *
The Economy
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance.
Interest rates in this country are now at a 40 year low
but the spread between interest rates and credit card rates is at a 24 year
high. Canadians are now paying about 18% on credit cards, despite a falling
bank rate and a falling prime rate.
When the minister asked his buddies at the big banks in
this country for permission to bring in a fall budget, did he also ask them to
bring down their outrageously high interest rates on credit cards?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when the bank moves
one wants to see all interest rates come down, which is why mortgage rates are
virtually at an all time low.
The Bank of Canada was able to act in this way because
of the elimination of the deficit, because of the pay down of $35 billion in
debt and because of the significant tax cuts brought in by the government.
There is tremendous confidence among central bankers as
to the governance of this country by the government and it is reflected in the
drop in interest rates.
* * *
Lumber Industry
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government's inaction is devastating
our forest industry. Now the U.S. is expected to add a second softwood lumber
tariff to the one that has already caused thousands of layoffs in
Canada.
Does the minister know whether the U.S. plans to
increase the tariff by as high as 40%? Should this happen, will the government
commit today to an income support program for forest industry workers affected
by job losses?
Will the government finally stand up to the U.S. and
ensure the well-being of our forest industry?
(1445)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the question is
hypothetical. We will get the formal notice of the decision
tomorrow.
In the meantime, the government will continue to do
what it has been doing very aggressively for months, and that is to proceed on
our two track policy, availing ourselves of our legal avenue at the WTO. We
filed for a WTO panel on October 25. Meanwhile, a series of aggressive
discussions are ongoing with full federal and provincial
participation.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, an official from the solicitor general's
office was quoted this morning as saying that a request by customs and
immigration officers and park wardens to carry sidearms is “a compensation
issue wrapped up as a safety issue because these workers can't find any other
ways to get more money”.
The RCMP and CSIS are currently overextended during
this time of heightened national security.
Will the solicitor general agree to arming these
federal employees who are already responsible for border security?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we all know that, with regard to the
customs organization, of course the safety and security of our employees is
very important indeed. We have been discussing that question, which has been
raised on numerous occasions by the union. Lately, I also met with the
president of the union to discuss that. In my mind there is no question that
the customs officers will be receiving sidearms.
Notwithstanding that fact, I would like to tell the
House that there is a risk assessment analysis taking place at the present
time. However, as far as I am concerned, with the risk assessment I have seen,
there is no question we will give sidearms to the customs officers.
* * *
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, with the peacekeeping commitment we have
made in Bosnia and around the world, our Canadian forces are stretched to the
limit. This being the case, we may require our reservists to serve and provide
backing for our forces. It is projected that up to one half of our reservists
may not even report for duty if called. Why? Because we do not provide them
with job protection like other countries do.
When will the Minister of Defence and the government
take action to provide our reservists with job protection when they are called
for duty?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our reservists would only be asked to
report on a voluntary basis and of course they would have to consider their job
situation when doing that. I must however point out that the Canadian forces
liaison council has signed up thousands of businesses in the country to assist
in giving reservists the time off that they need.
Furthermore, the hon. member should remember that back
during the ice storm some 15,000 Canadian forces personnel, most of them
reservists, were made available and helped Canadians in that
disaster.
* * *
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism legislation defines a
terrorist act as an act committed for a political, religious or ideological
purpose. Yesterday the fisheries minister voiced his concern that the
anti-terrorism bill could unfairly target minorities. Canadians share his
concern.
Will the Minister of Justice advise why these groups
are being singled out?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, time and time again I have made it plain
that these groups are not being singled out.
Let me also clarify that there is no disagreement
between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and myself. We both agree that
what is important here is to hear from both the House of Commons committee and
the Senate committee, and I look forward to that advice and those
recommendations.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the political or religious motivation
behind the explosion of a terrorist bomb is irrelevant. However, the minister
chooses to target religious or political groups in the definition of terrorist
act.
Will the minister show respect for the religious and
political beliefs of Canadians by removing this offensive phrase from the
legislation?
(1450)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before and I will say again
very clearly, what we are targeting is terrorist activity regardless of by whom
it is committed. We are targeting terrorist entities.
* * *
[Translation]
North American
Security
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois proposed that any
future North American security perimeter should include all NAFTA partners,
Canada, the United States and Mexico.
For President Bush, North America's security includes
Mexico. That is why yesterday he referred to a perimeter involving the three
countries.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Bloc Quebecois
and President Bush that, for economic and social reasons, a North American
security perimeter must include Mexico?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister already said that he
intends to discuss this issue with the United States and with
Mexico.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, negotiations to establish a security
perimeter will cover a number of subjects, including immigration.
Given the Canada-Quebec agreement on this matter, will
the Prime Minister make a commitment to consult with Quebec and respect its
jurisdiction during the course of these negotiations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, will we respect not only the jurisdiction
of Quebec, but that of all the provinces. This respect is very important to us.
But as the national government, the federal government, we have a
responsibility to represent all of our country's interests, and we will respect
this jurisdiction.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the health minister's department prepared
a report before September 11 and just now published. The report says that costs
of an anthrax attack on just 100,000 Canadians would cost us over $6 billion
and a botulism attack over $8 billion.
The report by Health Canada's Centre for Emergency
Preparedness said that the government should spend between $50 million and $100
million to prepare reasonably. Yet the Minister of Health has allocated only
about $5 million to stockpile medicines. His department says that is not nearly
enough. Why has he not listened?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is based on a report
written almost three years ago. We really have to do something about getting
the Alliance research bureau a quick response unit.
Since September 11, a great deal has changed. Since
April 1999, a great deal more has changed. In the meantime Health Canada has
opened the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response. We have put almost
$12 million into training and to strengthening laboratories, stockpiling
antibiotics and other medications, doing the very things that Ron St. John said
are needed. We will continue to do the things necessary to make sure Canada is
ready.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, although the report was just published,
the minister has just admitted that he has had it for some time. The report,
even before September 11, said that he should be spending between $50 million
and $100 million to stockpile medicines for Canadians. Yet he is only spending
about $5 million now, after September 11.
How can he claim that it is enough to prepare us for
bioterror?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, shortly after that report was published,
we asked the principal author to become the executive director of our Centre
for Emergency Preparedness and Response. We gave him the authority to put in
place the things we need to make this country ready. We will continue to do
exactly that.
* * *
[Translation]
International
Exchanges
Mr. Dan McTeague
(Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development is back from Germany, where he took part in the
celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Canada-Germany
science and technology cooperation agreement.
Could the secretary of state tell the House how our
country is benefiting from this agreement?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State
(Science, Research and Development), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on October 25, in Bonn, Germany, we
celebrated the 30th anniversary of technology exchanges between our two
countries.
I signed a new agreement with my counterpart, the
minister of science in Germany, Mrs. Bulmahn. In order to implement this
agreement, the National Research Council of Canada and the national research
council of Germany will provide $720,000 annually.
The exchanges will involve mostly telemedicine,
optoelectronics, agriculture and biotechnologies. This is yet another example
which shows that Canada can take part in international exchanges.
* * *
(1455)
[English]
National Security
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government has sidelined 425 of its
peace officers by not providing sidearms to the national park wardens. Those
people unfortunately, who are ready, willing and able to do their jobs, are
sitting on their hands.
Considering that the revenue minister has just
announced that the customs officers are going to be receiving firearms, will
the heritage minister make the same announcement for the national park
wardens?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I said about customs officers, I
would like to be more precise. I forgot to mention the “not” which is very
important indeed. We are not going to give sidearms to the customs officers as
far as I am concerned.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance):
That is just outstanding, Mr. Speaker. I cannot believe
that the minister would even have the audacity to stand up and say that, when
we have people at the border trying to protect us and they cannot protect
themselves. That is over the top. I cannot believe this minister. What excuse
does he have for not allowing them to protect themselves?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, customs officers have been well trained.
Lately customs officers have been given official powers as well as very good
training. They have been provided with the additional tools to fulfill their
duties. They are doing a wonderful job for our Canadian society. They all know
in the field that they do not need sidearms to protect our Canadian society.
That is not our vision of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Anti-Terrorism
Legislation
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Justice showed
some openness and said she was prepared to review the definition of “terrorist
activity” and to provide a control mechanism regarding access to information,
two issues that the Bloc Quebecois identified as being problematic.
The minister also said that sunset clauses could apply
to some clauses of the bill.
Like her colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, is the Minister of Justice prepared to make a firm commitment that her
bill will indeed include sunset clauses?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, I look forward
to the work of the House committee of which the hon. member is a member. I look
forward to the report of the Senate pre-study committee. In fact, I know that
it will have very useful advice and recommendations for us in relation to the
areas the hon. member has identified as well as other areas.
* * *
[Translation]
Airline Industry
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question about
assistance for air carriers, the Minister of Transport confirmed that this
assistance would be limited to national carriers, thus excluding small regional
carriers in Quebec, which are no less affected by the events of September
11.
Does the Minister responsible for regional development
intend to try to convince the Minister of Transport to extend his loan
guarantee program to Quebec's small regional air carriers?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that in the aftermath of
September 11 the airline industry was particularly hard hit and, as an economic
generator, had to be helped. That is why we announced the $160 million of
direct compensation. We have also agreed that there would be a limited program
of loan guarantees for the five major airlines covering 95% of all passenger
movements in Canada. We intend to make that the limit.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. The Canadian Wind Energy Association indicates that it cannot get
financing for its projects in Canada and that a lot of the financing is going
to the United States.
Will he consider adding some incentives and tax breaks
in the budget that is upcoming in December?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to
members of the Canadian Wind Energy Association yesterday. I informed them of
course that the Government of Canada has $1.1 billion worth of initiatives on
the table already. I further informed them that their action plan, a very
thoughtful action plan, for the future of renewable energy in this country
would be considered very carefully by this government in future business plans
to deal with climate change.
* * *
Lumber Industry
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade told the House that the U.S. had
suspended the Byrd amendment. He was wrong. When I asked about anti-dumping
coming down tomorrow by the U.S., he called that question hypothetical. I
suggest the parliamentary secretary better wake up. Right now the Canadian
forest industry, because of the Byrd amendment, is paying the U.S. forest
industry directly. Canadians are subsidizing Americans.
What is the plan of this government? Canadians right
now are facing significant job losses in the tens of thousands. What is the
government doing to stop--
(1500)
The Speaker:
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Trade.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that the opposition has
finally woken up and asked a question on softwood lumber for the first time in
weeks.
The Byrd amendment is potentially a very harmful and
disruptive measure for the international trading environment. That is why
Canada, along with Mexico and nine other countries, is challenging the Byrd
amendment at the WTO. We fully expect to get a favourable ruling in that
case.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the nuclear propulsion reactor in Nanoose,
B.C. is about 40 kilometres or one to two minutes by jet from the Vancouver
International Airport. This floating nuclear reactor operates at a high power
density, uses more enriched uranium nuclear fuel, almost weapon grade and has
smaller meltdown margins than land reactors.
In the sea there are no concrete walls or steel walls.
What procedures are in place in B.C. to protect against a terrorist attack on a
nuclear propulsion reactor?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, there is elaborate collaboration
between Canada and the United States with respect to nuclear security. Second,
the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission took steps immediately on September 11
to heighten security to protect all Canadians.
Those steps were accelerated on October 19 with further
measures to ensure that the Canadian public interest would be
protected.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in
the gallery of a former colleague, the Honourable Chris Axworthy, Q.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for the province of Saskatchewan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Points of Order
Oral Question
Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the confusion arising from today's
exchange that I had with the Minister of National Revenue, he first said that
they were going to be providing guns and then he said they were not going to be
providing guns.
I would like you to pay particular attention to the
blues and to the television transcription of the event so we can be sure that
this confusion is enshrined in Hansard.
The Speaker:
I am sure the hon. member would not want the Speaker to
sow any seeds of confusion anywhere and in fact would do everything possible to
avoid confusion.
I thought that was the point of the hon. member's point
of order, but I am sure we will take what he said under advisement and the
appropriate authorities will heed his sound, sage advice.
* * *
Privilege
Firearms Act
[Privilege]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in
relation to the failure of the Minister of Justice to respect the tabling
requirements, enacted for the benefit of this House by the Parliament of
Canada, in section 119 of the Firearms Act and chapter 39 of the Statutes of
Canada, 1995.
Section 117 of the Firearms Act confers on the governor
in council extensive regulation making powers in recognition of the significant
impact which the exercise of those powers can have on Canadians. Parliament
also adopted a provision requiring the Minister of Justice to table any
proposed regulation before both houses for referral to an appropriate committee
of each house before the regulation can be enacted by the governor in
council.
Section 118 of the act precludes the adoption of any
proposed regulation before the expiry of certain deadlines to ensure that
members of both houses have an adequate opportunity to examine and report on
the appropriateness of the regulation under the Firearms Act.
This background information makes clear that parliament
attaches a great deal of importance to members being fully informed and
involved before the governor in council is allowed to make a regulation under
section 117. It is against this background that the exceptions to the rule must
be assessed.
Section 119 of the Firearms Act provides for two cases
in which the governor in council is allowed to make a regulation without the
Minister of Justice having first tabled the text of the proposed regulation
before both houses. The first exception is where the minister is of the opinion
that the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are
immaterial or insubstantial.
The second exception applies only to regulations made
under certain specific paragraphs of section 117 and where the minister is of
the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that the requirement
in section 118 should not apply.
In both these instances subsection 119(4) of the act
provides that where the Minister of Justice forms the opinion that a regulation
should not be tabled in draft form, the minister shall have a statement of the
reasons he or she formed that opinion laid before each house of
parliament.
It has come to my attention that between September 16,
1998, and December 13, 2000, a number of proposed amendments to regulations
made under the Firearms Act have not been tabled before parliament as required
by section 118 of the act.
The relevant instruments are those registered under the
designation SOR/98-468 to SOR/98-471, SOR/99-109 to SOR/99-111, SOR/99-453,
SOR/2000-224, SOR/2000-225, SOR/2000-259, SOR/2000-385, and SOR/2001-9 to
SOR/2001-12.
In four of these sixteen instances the reason for which
the amendment was not tabled was that the Minister of Justice formed an opinion
that the regulation was so urgent that section 118 should not apply. In the
other twelve cases the regulations were not tabled pursuant to section 118
because the minister formed the opinion that the changes made were immaterial
or insubstantial.
As far as I could determine from the records of the
House, the minister has not complied in those 16 cases with the duty imposed
upon her by subsection 119(4) of the act to table a statement of reasons
supporting her opinion that the section 118 requirement should not
apply.
On October 17, 2001, my colleague, the member for
Yorkton--Melville, rose on a point of order to request that the same minister
observe the statutory tabling requirement in the case of yet another regulation
which was registered as SOR/2001-336.
(1505)
There is a fundamental distinction between the point of
order raised by my colleague and the question of privilege I raise today. It is
my contention that the minister's failure to table the required statements in
relation to the instruments I have identified is a breach of the privileges of
the House. This conclusion would not change even if the minister were to table
the required statements today, tomorrow or the day after.
In failing to table the required statements the
minister is not only breaching an order of the House as expressed in its
statute but has also deprived members of their ability to verify that her
reasons for exempting these regulations from the application of section 118 are
sound and proper.
There can be no excuse for the minister's cavalier
disregard of the statutory duty she owes to the House. Each of the regulations
in question states in its preamble that the minister will lay a statement of
reasons before each house as she is required to do by section 119 of the act.
This is not a case where the minister was unaware of her duty.
Mr. Speaker, your predecessor was called upon in 1993
to rule on a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Scarborough--Rouge River. The issue at that time concerned the failure of the
minister of finance to table an order made under the Customs Act as it was his
statutory duty to do. The member for Scarborough--Rouge River stated that he
entertained no doubt that:
|
--the
minister's failure to table a document required to be tabled by this House,
whether intentional or accidental, tends to diminish the authority of the House
of Commons and is something that might reasonably be held to constitute
contempt by this House. |
Speaker Fraser ruled on April 19, 1993, that a prima
facie case of breach of privilege had been made and allowed the member to move
a motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on House Management. In
his ruling Speaker Fraser reiterated that:
|
The
requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by
this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be
respected. Members cannot function if they do not have access to the material
they need for their work and if our rules are being ignored and even statutory
instruments are being disregarded. |
The Speaker said he found it particularly disheartening
that the government failed to table documents within the prescribed time and
did not do so until after the matter was raised in the House. The Speaker noted
that the tabling was a statutory requirement and quoted the member's
comment:
It is difficult to conceive of any
command of this House that could have more legitimacy than one contained in a
law passed by this House. |
The Speaker also agreed that disregard of a legislative
command, even if unintentional, was an affront to the authority and dignity of
parliament as a whole and the House in particular.
It should be noted that the statute in this case does
not specify a particular time within which the minister must table a statement
of reasons before both houses when a regulation is made without having first
been laid in draft form before the House.
Does this mean that tabling of such a statement may be
made at any time? Can it be years after the making of a regulation? The answer
to both questions is no. In the absence of a specific tabling deadline the
obligation of the minister must be understood to be an obligation to table her
statement of reasons within a reasonable time following the enactment of the
regulation made in reliance on subsections 119(2) or 119(3) of the Firearms
Act.
(1510)
It may be that reasonable people might disagree on
whether a particular delay in tabling is reasonable or not in the
circumstances. However, it is equally certain that no reasonable person would
consider that a delay of two or three years is reasonable or was contemplated
by the statute.
In any event the questions of whether or not a
particular delay in fulfilling a tabling requirement was reasonable and whether
there has in fact been a breach of the statutory duty imposed by subsection
119(4) are clearly at the heart of this question of privilege.
These are questions that the House itself will deal
with in reaching a decision on the question of privilege.
At this stage, we are not concerned with a substantive
determination of the question of privilege but only with a determination of
whether or not the facts I have laid before the Speaker appear to give rise to
a legitimate question of privilege. That is the only issue before the Speaker
and, based on the ruling by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the
House should be allowed to deal with the substantive issue of
privilege.
In closing, I believe that a review of this precedent
will show that the repeated failure of the Minister of Justice, whom, by the
way, I have given a notice to today, to table a statement of reasons in 16
instances for a period of over two years, beginning some three years ago,
constitutes a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move an appropriate
motion but I will seek advice from you. Should I table the motion today or
later on when you so desire?
(1515)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I received moments before question period
a copy of the letter to which the hon. member refers. He refers in that to
regulations made under section 117 of the Firearms Act, and the tabling
requirement under subsection 119(4).
I have some difficulty in understanding how this issue
could be before the House today. If the information I have is correct, the
matter of the tabling of regulations pursuant to section 117 of the Firearms
Act was already brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for
Yorkton--Melville on October 17.
When it was brought to the attention of the House at
that time, it was on a point of order and the Speaker accepted that it was a
point of order, not a question of privilege. I am in some difficulty to
understand how, mysteriously, it could be a question of privilege
today.
Second, I am told that the Chair ruled at the time that
the matter would be taken under advisement and that the Speaker would come back
to the House and give his answer on the matter. I have no information to the
effect that the Chair has ruled on it. I assume the Chair has not. If the Chair
has ruled on it, it must be only very lately.
Furthermore, I understand that the Minister of Justice
intends to lay the matter in question before the House in very short order in
any case, which would probably make the point moot if and when it is
raised.
Finally, I understand that the Minister of Justice is
providing to the two members in question, namely the member who just raised the
issue along with the member for Yorkton--Melville, written information
regarding the material in question.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have to add another piece of information
to this in relation to what my colleague across the way just said. There is a
huge time difference.
The regulation I was referring to, and the urgent need
that the minister made, was taking place on September 11. I raised that issue
several weeks later. The time differential there was very different from what
my colleague is now raising.
This is a question of privilege because the minister
has ignored this for a very long period of time. She has completely disregarded
it.
These are two separate issues completely.
I did not raise it as a question of privilege. I wanted
the minister to reply. She did not give an adequate answer, Mr. Speaker, but
that is really not what concerns you in this case.
In this case we have, I believe, a prima facie case
before the House on privilege, and because of the time differential these two
are not comparable.
The Speaker:
The Chair will take the matter under advisement. I want
to review the remarks of the member for Surrey Central and the contributions,
of course, of the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville and the government House
leader. I will get back to the House in due course.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1520)
[Translation]
Export Development Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-31, an act to amend the Export Development
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
third time and passed.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this bill on the Export Development
Corporation—let us call it that for the last time—which was known by the French
acronym SEE and the English EDC, stems from a series of consultations in which
I participated as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade.
We have put a lot of work into the Export Development
Corporation, and I regret now to have to announce that we will be voting
against this bill at third reading. We did, as I said, try to get it
amended.
For our audience, it is important to know that the
mandate of the Export Development Corporation is to support Quebec's and
Canada's exporters, as well as those who wish to do business in Canada. It
therefore also has a function to develop trade with other countries.
It was established in 1944 as the Export Credits
Insurance Corporation. In 1969, it became a crown corporation and acquired the
additional powers of being able—and this was something new—to make direct loans
to foreign borrowers, and to borrow against the government's credit to finance
its activities.
In 1993, a final change enabled it to invest in capital
stock, to lease assets to users outside Canada, to constitute subsidiaries, as
well as to take part in joint ventures.
In a way, the EDC is self-funding, in that it receives
no parliamentary votes for its activities. It is a very important corporation.
Hon. members need to know that it estimates that it has
supported experts and foreign investments to the tune of some $45 billion last
year. It is a very important corporation. Despite its financial
self-sufficiency, it is still a crown corporation, because a private company
wishing to do the same could never compete with it. It is, therefore, a crown
corporation which, thanks to a series of privileges, benefits both potential
investors in Quebec and Canada and potential exporters from Quebec and
Canada.
It is not subject to the Access to Information Act. It
is not subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. It is not regulated by the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as is the case for the
private sector. It does not pay income tax. It does not have to pay dividends.
It can borrow at favourable rates, thanks to the credit extended to the
Government of Canada.
Those are some of what might be termed the privileges
enjoyed by the EDC.
(1525)
It is easy to see its importance but it is also easy to
see why parliamentarians have repeatedly studied its role in Quebec, in Canada
and abroad. It is not subject to the Access to Information Act, nor
environmental assessment, and it has developed a policy of extreme secrecy. For
all these reasons, there have been numerous recommendations made regarding the
EDC.
The first amendment to Bill C-31 is to change the name
of the EDC. I think that few parliamentarians noticed this. However, since I
have been here, I have seen many legislative texts that begin by modifying the
name.
The EDC, the Export Development Corporation, is well
known. This bill changes the name to Export Development Canada.
The names of so many crown corporations have been
changed to contain the “Canada” trademark, all I can do is to comment that this
is also the case with the name of the EDC.
For the benefit of those listening, I would like to
point out that the most outrageous change, in my opinion, was that made to the
former Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, the regional section of
the Department of Industry, the former Canadian regional development
department, which dealt solely with development investment in Quebec. That was
why it was called the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.
Shortly after we arrived here in 1993, a bill was
adopted which stipulated that this office, for the region of Quebec, would be
called Economic Development Canada. What is peculiar is that, in the budget or
votes, the names of offices with a similar mandate in the other provinces—for
example, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Diversification
Office—remained unchanged.
Yet in Quebec, it is now called Export Development
Canada. Of course, this is all part of the great propaganda campaign to rename
things. So, in French, it is goodbye to the SEE and hello to Exportation et
développement Canada.
In 1998-99, the EDC was the object of a first review
that had been decided in 1993. For the purpose of that exercise, the firm of
Gowlings was asked to make recommendations. Gowlings conducts studies and
audits. It is one of these large Canadian accounting, and surely now financial
firms.
Gowlings, which is very much a private firm, made
recommendations that differed significantly from the practices in use at the
EDC as regards, among other things, transparency, the environment, sustainable
development and also human rights.
(1530)
Indeed, this is from the firm of Gowlings, a well known
firm of lawyers, accountants and other experts. Its recommendations were not
revolutionary, but provided that:
The EDC should regularly publish
information on the operations that it funds. This information could include,
for example, the name of the borrower, the country, the exporter— |
The firm added the following:
Canada must work to achieve an
international consensus on guidelines and environmental procedures that must be
complied with by organizations similar to the EDC in other
countries. |
Immediately after, it goes on to say:
The EDC should submit its
environmental framework to a public consultation process and ensure that the
resulting policy is largely supported by exporters and non-governmental
organizations. |
This was in 1998-99. The firm then
recommended:
|
—That
the EDC act be amended to subject the EDC to the general requirement of
establishing environmental assessment procedures in line with its commercial
objectives and allow its board of directors to authorize or deny financial
support by the corporation, based on the benefits or consequences of the
projects or operations for the environment. The corporation should develop and
publish a policy regarding its obligation to inform the public of the results
of its environmental assessments— |
I will not read everything. Finally, on the issue of
human rights, the firm said:
EDC should implement a policy whereby
when applying for EDC financial or insurance services, Canadian exporters are
asked to indicate on a voluntary basis whether they have adopted their own
codes of conduct that ensure respect for human rights, ethical business conduct
and fair labour standards in their international activities. |
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade studied the Gowlings report at some length, after hearing
from many witnesses. The committee made several recommendations. These
recommendations dealt with public disclosure, with its risk assessments, which
could be useful to Canadian financial institutions and to the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
The committee, with the support of Liberal members—we
know, of course, how things work in committee—opted for the principle of
improving mandatory disclosure of useful information in the interest of public
accountability, in line with the Gowlings report's recommendation, provided
that confidential trade information was protected.
It also suggested that:
|
--a
provision be added enjoining EDC to give due regard to the commitments and
obligations undertaken by Canada under international agreements— |
The committee then proposed, and this is
interesting:
|
—EDC
could further enhance its public credibility by conducting a formal
consultation with stakeholders on the framework's performance after its first
year of operation— |
Generally speaking, the recommendations did not find a
taker in the report. However, not only the Bloc Quebecois but many NGOs who
came to testify found that even the committee's report did not go far
enough.
There is one basic principle. This corporation is a
crown corporation. As such, can it afford to fund and support in various ways
companies which do not respect the environmental assessment framework? Can it
refuse to provide information which is provided in other countries by
equivalent corporations?
(1535)
Can it circumvent international agreements that Canada
signs in the area of human rights? Can the corporation, which acts on Canada's
behalf, do everything contrary to what Canada signs?
This basically is what the Bloc is opposed to. I will
not say that there should be no concern over competition and trade secrets.
That said, however, there remains a significant margin where, while remaining
competitive—the American and Australian corporations are—the corporations must
honour the bases of the major international conventions.
Without compatibility, we could be contributing to the
confusion and anger of many countries and people living in developing
countries, who see countries like Canada with international commitments
respecting the environment and human rights and a degree of transparency and
practices at home that contravene these very rules.
Bill C-31, which has created a lot of expectations
among many people, contains some improvements. They are so timid that they will
prevent us, even if we wanted to, from voting in favour of its
content.
I have no doubt my colleague from Rosemont will use all
his time to speak to the environmental aspect, because what is there is totally
inadequate. I will read the only thing sought, and we will see it makes no
sense.
Clause 10.1 provides, and I quote:
|
10.1(1) Before entering, in the exercise of its powers under
subsection 10(1.1), into a transaction that is related to a
project— |
So before it knows if it will support a
project,
|
the
Corporation must determine— |
|
(a) whether the project is likely to have adverse
environmental effects despite the implementation of mitigation measures;
and |
|
(b) if such is the case, whether the Corporation is
justified in entering into the transaction. |
The problem lies in the fact that the auditor general
has said that the frames of reference were inadequate even to evaluate it, and
that of the 25 projects she evaluated, 23 did not conform.
In terms of the environment, transparency, public
disclosure of information or compliance with international conventions on human
rights, Bill C-31 is a long way from attaining the minimum objectives we might
have expected.
It is therefore with regret that we will vote against
the bill.
(1540)
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as always I am pleased to rise on behalf
of the people of Surrey Central. Today I am taking part in the third reading
debate on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make
amendments to other acts.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the
hon. member for Kelowna.
The bill is of a housekeeping nature, simply to update
the act. The government did not accept any amendments from the opposition
parties during the committee stage.
Since legislation governing the Export Development
Corporation requires a ministerial review of the act, a review commenced in
1998 and concluded with a report. It was reviewed and reported by the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The results of that
report are the amendments in Bill C-31.
If passed, the bill will enable the board to delegate
its powers. It will require the EDC to establish a pension plan for its
employees. The treasury board policy encourages crown corporations to arrange a
comprehensive, independent pension plan for their employees.
The CPP managed by the federal government earns even
less interest than a bank savings account. That is how expert the government is
in mismanaging the employee and employer funds.
The surplus funds from the inefficiently managed CPP
were grabbed by the Liberal government. The chief actuary of the CPP was fired
for being forthright and not yielding to the Liberals' pressure.
Prior to these amendments, there were no legislated
environmental review requirements of the EDC. If the bill is passed, it will
require the EDC to determine if a project is likely to have adverse
environmental effects and whether it would be justified for the EDC to enter
into a transaction.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will not
apply to the EDC's reviews so that Canadian environment standards and laws are
not imposed on other sovereign nations. That is what the government says. Or
perhaps the government can further its own agenda under the guise of
environmental protection evasion.
The objective of the substantive environmental
amendment is to strike a balance between trade competitiveness and concern for
the potential environmental impacts of projects supported by the
EDC.
My opposition to the bill also stems largely from
questions surrounding EDC's lack of environmental accountability under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
In 1996 Candu reactors were sold to China at a cost of
$2.5 billion. To sweeten the deal, the Canadian government financed the sale
with EDC facilitating the deal.
Ordinarily, the deal would have required an
environmental assessment to deal with questions such as whether the area around
Qinshan was prone to earthquakes, floods and the like. Issues like these are of
vital importance in determining if nuclear reactors are a danger or not. Had an
environmental assessment been done at that time, it would have helped put these
concerns to rest.
We now know that since the government did not like the
rules of the game, it changed them, even though there is a lawsuit by the
Sierra Club of Canada. This is another example of how the government failed to
do its homework and tried to circumvent due process by altering the rules of
the game to suit its purposes.
We all witnessed the alarming and tragic consequences
of the nuclear tragedy in Chernobyl. The loss of life directly attributable to
that disaster is truly staggering.
(1545)
Years later, cancer rates in the area remain alarmingly
high. Imagine the effect of such a disaster in China where the population is
much greater. The death toll from radiation poisoning and cancer would be
enormous.
Environmental assessment in highly populated areas,
flood prone areas and earthquake prone areas was probably very important, but
the government thought it was better to stay quiet about such issues rather
than jeopardize the deal.
In general, this weak government's record on
environment is very weak. It has let the legislation on the protection of
endangered species die a few times on the order paper. It has signed
international treaties, including those from Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, for
example, with no intentions whatsoever of carrying out its commitments. The
government made those commitments without consulting Canadians, parliament and
the provinces. The government has made political decisions about matters that
require scientific decisions, logic and reasoning.
The auditor general recommended that most international
financial institutions, including export credit agencies, have environmental
policies and procedures. A consensus emerged on the elements of good practice
that an international financial institution should adopt to ensure that the
projects it supports are environmentally and socially responsible.
Industrialized G-8 countries and OECD countries developed common environmental
guidelines for export credit agencies but the government is trying to
circumvent them.
To strengthen the framework's implementation, the EDC
should concentrate on the tools that identify environmental risks in the
screening process and on monitoring to ensure that the framework is operating
efficiently and effectively. To strengthen EDC's environmental review process,
EDC needs to make changes in both the design and the operation of the
framework. To close the gaps in the framework's design, EDC should focus on
enhancing transparency through public consultation and disclosure.
Another problem with the bill is that EDC is being used
by the Liberal government, no surprise, for political favours, in addition to
other crown corporations and agencies being used, such as CIDA, HRDC, WD, ACOA
and many others.
Patronage appointments in crown corporations are
rampant. Most recently, Mr. Bernard Boudreau, a short term senator and cabinet
member who unsuccessfully ran for the Liberals in the last election, was
appointed to the board of EDC. The bill does not address the issue of patronage
appointments at all.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes the essential part
financial institutions play in the everyday lives of Canadians. We would
protect the best interests of consumers by fostering competition and ensuring
that the financial services sector is adequately regulated, without impairing
stability or opportunity for success and growth in these
institutions.
Most of the services provided by the EDC, such as short
and medium term export insurance and financing, should be privatized. The rest
of the EDC services should become a division of DFAIT and should be directly
accountable to parliament. This division could provide occasional loan
guarantees and other services that are beyond the scope of the private sector,
such as long term insurance, political risk reassurance and projects that are
not commercially viable but are deemed to be in the national interest. In 1991
the United Kingdom privatized its equivalent export agency, the Export Credits
Guarantee Department. We can learn from that.
To serve exporters better, there should be true
competition in the export business and financing business. They should have the
opportunity to deal directly with their own banks or insurance brokers to have
their exports financed and insured. If the banks got into the business,
exporters might receive 100% financing in addition to speedier and personalized
services.
In conclusion, the bill does not address the concerns
that I have highlighted. I ask the government to address these issues and make
appropriate amendments to the bill, which they have not done so far. Otherwise
I will be left with no choice but to vote against the bill.
(1550)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to
three particular points in the bill. I would like to attack it from the
principles of patronage appointments and of crown corporations and private
enterprise, and also on the business of transparency, in particular with regard
to the judge, advocacy and jury all at the same time with the bill. It would do
those things.
It is actually amazing what the bill would do and how
it came to be. The first thing I want to stress is the business of this crown
corporation actually being created to be in direct competition with private
enterprise. Some people would ask how I came to this kind of conclusion. The
conclusion comes to me on the basis of what the United Kingdom did when it
considered joining the EU. At that time it became very evident that it needed
to maintain a clear balance between crown corporations, which are really the
instrument of government, to develop their particular policies, purposes and
objectives, and to do so in a commercially viable way. At least that is the
purported intent.
While I do not quarrel with a situation where a private
enterprise could not get into that enterprise, I do quarrel with it here. So
did the EU and so did the United Kingdom. In fact, in 1991, ten years ago, the
United Kingdom privatized a short term branch of its equivalent export agency.
It was called the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The agency was
privatized to ensure that there were no implied trade subsidies in the EU from
one country to another. The United Kingdom government now, as written in 1997,
provides a political risk reinsurance to the private company that took over the
ECGD.
I think it is very significant that the United Kingdom
saw the potential conflict that was there, not only in its own government but
also in the governments of other countries, and the complication that it would
create among various countries doing business with one another. It wanted to
have a fair and level playing field among them.
Why is that significant? The EDC really runs its
operation on two accounts. It has a commercial account and it has a Canada
account. The commercial account really gets most of its money from financing
export operations and the insurance in guaranteeing certain loans to exporters.
The Canada account, on the other hand, is designed to advance the particular
policies, objectives and purposes of the Canadian government. I am really
addressing my remarks here to the first part of that, because that is its major
operation. It is here that it finds itself in direct conflict with private
enterprise.
Philosophically and on principle I am utterly and
completely opposed to government doing things that the private sector can do as
well or better. I would suggest that not only is that the case for the private
enterprise, but it is actually in the interests of all Canadians that it be the
case.
I will move on to my second point which has to do with
the patronage appointments that are possible here. I will read, for the benefit
of those who are listening to us this afternoon, the provisions for this
activity as provided for in Bill C-31. It is really an amendment to section 7.
Section 7.1 states:
The Board may establish any other
committee and that committee may exercise any powers and perform any duties of
the Board delegated to it by the Board. |
If we wanted carte blanche, there it is. We would first
of all have this board and this board would have a number of members on it
appointed by the government. They feel they would like to do something. There
may be some friends that they would like to have doing some work, so they form
a committee and appoint people who are their friends and who can do certain
kinds of things. The number of committees is unlimited. They may form any
committee to do whatever they want and then they can delegate whatever powers
they have to any one of those particular committees.
(1555)
One would think that reason would prevail and that in
fact there would not be an abuse of this power, but we have seen it, not only
in this government but in other governments where this kind of freedom exists
and politics rather than the interests of people enter into the decision making
process. At that point it is clearly obvious that a political advantage accrues
to those who supported the party in power. That is what I am concerned
about.
Not only would the bill make it possible, the bill
almost says please do it and make sure that there are enough vacancies here so
that we can appoint anybody we want to have appointed to these committees. I
take strong exception to that. I do not believe that kind of thing should
happen.
Can a private corporation do something similar to this?
Yes, it can, but it has the added difference that it does this on the basis of
being efficient and working in the interests of the shareholders and the people
it is trying to serve.
That motivation may be the same for the government, but
it may not be. The political situation may be one of fostering its own bed
rather than developing what is there in the best interests.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that is not you. You care about
people. I know that. I know you very well. Even though you are in an opposing
party, you are the kind of guy who I think would not do this sort of thing.
However, Mr. Speaker, they are not all like you.
I will move on to my third point which has to do with
the judge, advocacy and jury of this committee. I cannot believe the kind of
thing that has happened here. However, not only do I have to believe it, I have
to put it in the context of what the auditor general said about this
corporation.
I want to refer specifically to paragraph 22 in the May
2001 auditor general's report on the Export Development Corporation and in
particular the environmental review framework. In paragraph 22 he
states:
Unlike federal departments and
agencies-- |
Here I notice that he is separating out from federal
departments and agencies that crown corporation in particular, the Export
Development Corporation.
|
--the
Export Development Corporation is not subject to the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act or to the Access to Information Act. Unlike private sector
financial institutions, it is not subject to regulation by the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, does not pay income tax, is not
required to pay dividends, and can borrow at favourable rates on the credit of
the Government of Canada. |
That is very significant. This group could determine a
number of things. With regard to the environment, it may determine whether a
particular project “is likely to have adverse environmental effects” and then
later on it will define what an adverse environmental effect is to be. Is that
not interesting? A project comes up and the board decides on what are adverse
environmental conditions. The other one is whether the particular project
actually does meet those requirements. If we wanted to create a situation where
we could change the rules of the game halfway through the game, we would have a
perfect way in which to do this. All the board would have to do is change the
definition and change its particular interpretation or application of that
definition for a particular project.
I cannot think of a greater morass, almost a miasma, a
poisonous vapour arising from this kind of situation, than a group that comes
to this board and says it will not cause environmental damage, with the board
members saying they are not sure if it fits the definition or not, and then
they could move it around to suit the situation as they wanted.
That should never be allowed. There should be an
independent group like the environmental group that stands for all government
agencies and departments, financial institutions, private institutions and for
us as individuals. It should apply in exactly the same way to this agency even
though it is a crown corporation.
I have to vote against this provision unless it is
changed.
(1600)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member raised the issue of the
applicability of the Access to Information Act. As the House knows, an all
party committee has been looking into the provisions of the act and its
applicability to corporations, such as the EDC, the Canada Broadcasting
Corporation and others.
One of the important elements of the debate about
whether or not there should be applicability of that act has to do with the
sensitive competitive information that would otherwise be available to the
public.
As the member knows, EDC deals extensively with
companies in the business community that are in a competitive environment and
wish to promote their export activities. Under the Access to Information Act,
their correspondence could be subject to requests.
To give an example, members of Democracy Watch wanted
the committee to ask the industry department to provide copies of every piece
of correspondence that was ever sent to them concerning a particular policy
initiative. It had nothing to do with the decisions of Industry Canada. It had
to do with a fishing expedition by people, either educators, researchers or
people in the espionage business, looking for information that they could use
for their own gain and that they could acquire it at a nominal cost.
I raise that with the member in terms of the
sensitivity that he may have to putting businesses, which, in good faith, go
through the EDC, at risk of having their competitive position jeopardized
because of the applicability of the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Werner Schmidt:
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to respond to the
hon. member. That is not at all what I referred to. There is sensitive
information, and the hon. member knows that I know that.
I completely agree that if there is information that is
pertinent to a particular contract, it must be kept confidential. However I do
not believe all information is of that nature, and he knows that too.
The important issue here is that there is a lot of
information that can and should be made public. The financial institutions,
such as the banking institutions that are governed by the superintendent of
financial institutions, must give certain information to the superintendent.
What we are talking about is that the corporation we are talking about today
does not have to do that. It should be as clear and transparent as those
institutions have to be to the superintendent, no more and no less.
We are not talking about the abuse of information. I am
not going on a fishing expedition and I do not think the hon. member is. That
is not the issue nor is it the point I was trying to make.
The point I am trying to make is that if it is
legitimate information it should be made public and it should be available to
all those who want it.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31, the
amendments to the Export Development Act. I think the concern Canadians have
whenever we talk about agencies or organizations such as the Export Development
Corporation is that once again we are talking about a crown corporation that
operates supposedly for the people of Canada and yet lacks all
accountability.
EDC has a reputation of being unaccountable, secretive
and without transparency in its operations. It does not fall under the Access
to Information Act which allows it to operate in such a way that it does not
respect environmental concerns and issues. It has a reputation of being a crown
corporation that operates out there on its own agenda.
I think Canadians are concerned that it has become a
norm for agencies of the government to operate without parliamentary oversight.
If people watch question period they will see that even when the opposition
parties try to ask questions of the minister to bring some accountability to
the crown corporation that the questions are not answered, not that any of them
ever are, but questions pertaining to this particular crown corporation are
never responded to in a way that shares information with Canadians as to what
it is doing.
I think Canadians have real concerns that the
government is continuing to operate in this manner and that it is the
government's mode to develop organizations that it controls. It controls the
people who run these organizations. It controls the information flow that goes
into them and the lack of information that comes out about them. In essence,
the government is removing any kind of connection between the people who pay
for the crown corporation, which is the Canadian taxpayer, and the operation of
it.
I think Canadians have become more aware of the
involvement of the Export Development Corporation when issues like the Candu
reactor come up and the fact that the Canada account, which I believe was used
in that kind of venture, is often done in such a way that there seems to be a
disregard for those regulations that are put in place, such as the
environmental regulations. Canadians are somewhat concerned that Canada would
be exporting Candu reactors without any kind of environmental assessments being
done, without any real concern about the national security of our country where
we would give foreign nations the capacity to perhaps use nuclear by-products
for other means other than creating energy.
I think Canadians to a degree are aware of the
existence of the Export Development Corporation but are not aware of the
details of it, who sits on the board or to whom it answers. Canadians are a
little concerned that here again is another crown corporation that is run in a
manner that may not be acceptable to the Canadian public who pay for
it.
We have to look at the bill and the amendments to see
whether they address those concerns. I would suggest that the bill does not
seem to address those concerns that Canadians have. I do not think that the
means with which the bill deals with the accountability is sufficient. I think
Canadians want to know that this crown corporation, which is using Canadian tax
dollars to give to some corporations but not all corporations, is done in a
fair and transparent manner. Some Canadian corporations might ask themselves
why their competitor is getting this kind of support when they are not.
Canadians need to feel comfortable that the people who are making the decision
as to who will get government support, taxpayer money, are treating these
decisions in a fair, open and above-board manner.
(1605)
I think the fact that the chairman and president of the
Export Development Corporation are appointed by the Prime Minister should cause
some concern. The fact that the other 13 board members are appointed by the
Minister for International Trade should cause Canadians some concern. The
reason for this concern is that once again we see that the appointments to this
board are political. They are being used to reward individuals who have been
faithful supporters of the party with an opportunity to sit on the
board.
I think Canadians would like to see the end of that
practice. I think Canadians would like to see some justification for the
appointments to the board of the Export Development Corporation. They would
like to see that the appointments of a president, CEO or chairman are done in
such a manner that they could not be used for political purposes. They want to
see people appointed who have earned the right to be there, people who have
expertise in the field they will be dealing with, who will be fair and balanced
in the decisions they make and who will not unduly risk Canadian taxpayers'
money for ventures that are not sound.
Somehow, perhaps reflecting on past appointments,
Canadians cannot be confident that this is happening. The amendments to the
bill do not deal with that concern. A very real concern that I hear on a very
regular basis through my householders is that Canadians are concerned about the
way the government does business and appoints individuals to positions for
whatever reason, most of them political. Canadians are concerned about that as
well as being very concerned about how the government spends their money and
how the decisions are made on how to spend their money. I do not see any
changes in the legislation that deal with those concerns.
As in many other cases, we see the government putting
in housekeeping legislation that deals with minor things like changing the
name. Canadians do not care whether it is called the export council of Canada
or export development council or whatever. Canadians do not care what it is
called. They care about what it does and how it does the business of the
day.
The issues of transparency and complying with the laws
of Canada with regard to environmental assessments are the issues that
Canadians care about. Canadians care that when the government is operating in
the global market network we can be proud of how Canada is represented, that it
is being represented by a corporation and by the government in a way that makes
us proud.
Minor changes to legislation such as changing the name
and moving around a few of the powers and oversights and whatnot just do not
cut it. I heard my colleague from the Canadian Alliance talking about the
decision maker, the oversight and the judge all being one. That basically is
still the situation. It has not changed.
Once again we see the government operating in a manner
that shows its arrogance and lack of contact and connection with Canadian
taxpayers. This shows that it really does not believe in transparency, that it
really does not believe in giving access to information to Canadians to let
them to know what is going on in their government and how their money is being
spent.
(1610)
I do not buy the argument that there are business
decisions that cannot be shared. If the Canadian taxpayer is being asked to put
money into a corporation, there should not be anything that the corporation is
not willing to share with the people who are paying the bill. If those
individuals do not want the ordinary Canadian to have access to that
information, then perhaps they should not be asking the Canadian taxpayer to
pick up the cost. If they want to avoid disclosure, if they want to avoid
access to information, there are private funding sources they can go to that do
not have that kind of responsibility to disclose and to be
accountable.
The government could have done a much better job of
making this crown corporation more accountable, of making this crown
corporation more acceptable to the Canadian taxpayer who is putting the money
up front. I would hope that the government could, in this legislation as in
other legislation, make necessary amendments to make it more
appropriate.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded. The member included a lot
of platitudes about secretive transparency, no access, arrogance, et cetera.
What she did not say, other than that the taxpayer is footing the bill, is that
the Export Development Corporation does not cost the Government of Canada
anything. In fact it is making money for the taxpayers of Canada. It is making
a substantial amount of money after having been set up.
If the member would check www.gc.ca and under
government departments look at Export Development Corporation, she would see
the financial statements. In fact she would also see EDC's annual report, which
I commend to the member to give her some information which she obviously does
not have.
Let me list some of the services provided. Under credit
insurance there is global comprehensive insurance; export credit insurance;
documentary credit insurance; specific transaction insurance. Under financing
there is direct loan operations; line of credit operations; note purchase;
purchase receivables; leasing; equity project financing; master accounts
receivable guarantee; small exporter guarantee framework; North Star Trade
Finance Inc.; the Scotia Americas capital equipment program. Under contracting
bonding, which I know the member knows all about, there is bid security
guarantees; performance security guarantees; bid security insurance;
performance security insurance; surety bond reinsurance; direct surety bond
support; political risk insurance.
I went out to the lobby and in two minutes I got this
information off the web.
Export Development Corporation is a vibrant financial
institution that is helping Canadian companies and companies abroad to do
export business which creates jobs in Canada. This is not simply a bunch of
people who were arbitrarily politically appointed, which the member summarily
reduces the entire EDC to. These are financial professionals who are working on
behalf of Canada.
Perhaps the member would like to retract or rethink her
view of EDC and the platitudes she has put out and put some specifics on the
table as to why she has to condemn this thing. Is it just a matter of her sheer
ignorance of EDC or is she simply playing politics?
(1615)
Ms. Val Meredith:
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that the member
had to run out and get some information on it. He has been sitting as a member
of parliament for the last however many years and he was not aware of what the
EDC is. It is not transparent. It is not open.
If EDC is as successful as the hon. member is saying it
is and makes so much money, why is it not in direct competition with the banks?
Why is the private sector not doing the job that this government crown
corporation is interfering with? The government has stepped out of line once
more I would suggest.
The member thinks the Canadian taxpayers should be
pleased that honourable people are being appointed. I am not doubting that
honourable people are being appointed; I am saying there is a direct
correlation with the government of the day, the Prime Minister and the Minister
for International Trade by appointing this board. That is not transparent. I
would suggest it is not what the Canadian taxpayers want to support.
Let the banks in Canada fund these agencies and
companies if it is such a good investment. If they make so much money, let the
banks make that money. Let private investors make that money.
I would suggest that if his information is correct, the
hon. member has given a reason for the government to get out of the business
completely.
Mr. Paul Szabo:
Mr. Speaker, I do know a lot about the EDC because the
minister responsible came to my riding and we had a business forum on this. It
was one of the most successful export forums that we have had.
I should also point out that the EDC was voted one of
the top 100 companies to work for because of its success. The member seems to
think if the federal government is successful with the EDC that it has to get
out of the business. I do not understand the false logic.
Ms. Val Meredith:
Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me that the Liberal
member across the way does not understand the logic that sometimes government
does not belong in the marketplace competing with the private sector. Perhaps
this is just one more case where the government should be handing it over
completely to the private sector to finance corporations for external trade. If
it is such a good investment, the private sector should be more than willing to
make that investment. It does not need the government to be doing
it.
(1620)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order
38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Library of
Parliament.
* * *
[English]
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West--Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, given the likelihood that the debate on
this bill may possibly finish before 5.30 p.m., I believe you would find
consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That
the recorded divisions scheduled for today at the end of government orders be
taken today at 5.30 p.m. |
That allows us, if this debate should finish, to
proceed to private members' business and then to come to the vote at the time
that everybody anticipates.
The Deputy Speaker:
Does the House give the chief government whip unanimous
consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
[Translation]
Export Development Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-31, an act to amend the Export Development
Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Bernard Bigras
(Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill C-31. As its title indicates, this is a bill to amend the Export
Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Obviously we can assume that from the moment this bill
becomes law it will probably be the last time we discuss what went under the
name of Export Development Corporation for many years. This bill proposes a new
name, export development Canada.
As my colleagues, the members for Mercier and Joliette,
clearly indicated, we will oppose the bill for reasons that are becoming more
and more obvious as the debate progresses.
I should remind members that the Bloc Quebecois
proposed in committee a number of amendments which, unfortunately, were
defeated. We would have liked to see the bill improved or at least to see a
number of environmental protection measures included in this bill. We would
also have liked the bill to provide for more transparency with regard to the
disclosure of information.
Parliamentarians study the way the corporation has had
to work and develop in recent years but we are not alone. A number of NGOs,
those belonging to the NGO working group on the Export Development Corporation,
repeatedly looked at the work the corporation had done in recent years to
expand exports and the extent to which funds and aid were given to projects
carried out in developing countries.
I can list some of the organizations involved. They
include the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights, the
Social Justice Commission of Montreal, the Canadian Council on International
Co-operation, the Canadian Labour Congress, Democracy Watch, Development and
Peace, Falls Brook Centre, Canadian Friends of Burma, Mining Watch Canada. Many
others also considered the potential impact of this bill on aspects of our
lives today.
We could debate a number of aspects of the bill, the
whole issue of disclosure of information, the place of democracy and human
rights, which certain specific organizations in the working group and the
standing committee on foreign affairs and human rights considered.
However, my intervention will focus primarily on the
environmental framework of the EDC and its involvement, on support for certain
projects which the EDC set up or supported in the past, but which also—no point
hiding it—violate to some extent a number of environmental parameters Canada
and Quebec have debated frequently. These debates naturally concern the funding
of projects in developing countries, some aspects of which should have been
included in the bill.
The bill is, to say the least, vague, soft and lacking
in environmental terms. It is vague as concerns its environmental framework,
which, in many ways, is nebulous and inadequate with respect to the need for
disclosure of information. I think this should be pointed out.
(1625)
As for EDC's environmental framework, the objective is
far from clear. It is to “implement a simple, clear, and efficient process for
reviewing on a timely basis the best available environmental information on
projects for which the Corporation's support is sought”.
Through this objective, the EDC is not saying that the
purpose of an environmental assessment is to ensure that the projects approved
respect the environment and encourage sustainable development. The EDC prefers
to qualify its approach in order to give itself some leeway.
Furthermore, the framework is based on two guiding
principles. The first is that environmental reviews undertaken by financial
institutions to mitigate project risk can help encourage sustainable
development by promoting consideration of the environmental benefits and costs
of projects in host country jurisdictions.
The end of my sentence, which is included in the bill,
is important.
The meaning of this guiding principle from the
framework is that consideration will be given to the context in which a project
would be carried out and therefore also to the context in which the project is
funded.
In certain developing countries, the corporation could
be called upon to fund projects which did not respect all the laws, the
environmental consensuses, the rules, regulations and environmental values
which Canadians and Quebecers have decided are important.
In this regard, I would like to mention one project,
although several come to mind. I am thinking of a project funded by the Export
Development Corporation. It was criticized for funding and giving $135 million
U.S. in support to a mine in Peru. In this particular case, the compensation to
the communities affected was clearly inadequate.
The Candu reactors are another very eloquent example.
Is it right that while environmentally based social consensuses must be
enforced within Canada's borders and prove acceptable, they would not be
enforced for certain other projects which, because of less stringent
environmental rules, could be implemented?
One must be consistent in politics. A project that
would be unacceptable in Canada for environmental reasons should not be
acceptable in some developing countries because their environmental rules are
not as strict as ours. That is why we, as well as several environmental groups
in Canada, have asked that these projects be assessed under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. If that were the case, the values and principles
that are agreed upon in Canada could be applied to those projects and not only
to Canadian projects.
We must realize that the framework used is not the
Canadian framework but could be that of a country where environmental rules are
not as strict.
(1630)
The other aspect, which is the second guiding
principle, is that the EDC should decline support for projects which, after
taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures, are in its
opinion likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot
be justified in the circumstances.
We think the first guiding principle clearly
illustrates a watering down of the environmental standards that the EDC intends
to apply. As I was saying earlier, why is it necessary to specify that it has
to be done in the context of the host country? Several EDC projects are in
developing countries where environmental standards are not as strict as they
are in Quebec and in Canada.
Moreover, need I remind members of this rather eloquent
report from the Auditor General of Canada, a special report dealing with its
evaluation of the Export Development Corporation, which pointed out that the
EDC did not respect its own environmental framework. According to an evaluation
by the Auditor General of Canada, and not by opposition members in this House,
the environmental effects had not been assessed properly or not at all in 23
out of 25 projects funded by the EDC. The situation is clear. In some cases,
the environmental framework is respected but, in other cases, it is not
respected at all. I think we must act quickly to correct this problem.
It is wrong to say that the bill we are looking at will
remedy the situation. It creates, in a way, a kind of loophole for the
government, a dispensation from even having to respect the environmental
consensus that has been reached in Canada.
There is another important aspect: the whole matter of
preselecting projects. How does the EDC environmental assessment
operate?
The first step is to select the projects that will
undergo environmental analysis. Right at the start, the corporation eliminates
two-thirds of these projects because it does not submit the short term
assurance aspect to any type of environmental review whatsoever. This includes
short term client account insurance. It protects exporters from any risk of
non-payment by purchasers.
For us it is clear that environmental viability is not
related to whether or not a project is carried out on the short or the long
term.
Then the project is linked to a risk sector. Whether
the mining sector, hydroelectric energy, oil or gas, forestry or pulp and
paper, the EDC does an influence test. With it, it determines whether it can
bring any influence to bear in order to reduce the risks posed by a project. It
carries out a detailed environmental review of a project only when it
determines that risk and influence constitute factors.
It can be seen that the Export Development Corporation,
soon to become export development Canada, possesses by virtue of what I have
just stated, a certain discretionary power in determining whether risk and
influence constitute factors to be considered. Rather than subjecting every
project to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the corporation gives
itself the power to conduct this screening.
The decision ought instead to be based solely on
potential environmental risk. A number of other institutions classify their
environmental assessment requirements according to potential impact on the
environment. This is the case in particular with the world export and
corporation bank in Australia. The greater the repercussions, the more
stringent the examination.
(1635)
I said that this bill leaves much to be desired. It is
vague as regards its environmental framework and inadequate as regards its
screening and self-assessment processes.
If the EDC feels that it has some influence, it carries
out an environmental assessment based on the promoter's information. A guiding
principle of the corporation's frame of reference provides that it will not
support a project if it feels that the anticipated positive effects do not
justify the potential harmful risks to the environment, in spite of the
implementation of mitigation measures.
In her May report, the Auditor General of Canada found
that there is no methodology to determine if adverse environmental risks can be
justified. This means that a project that would have a negative environmental
impact could be approved, based on the interpretation of the assessor and on
the information provided by the promoter.
No scientific criteria are used. Therefore, it is no
surprise that the auditor general found that, for 23 out of 25 projects that
were funded by the EDC, the assessment of the impact on the environment had
either not been done properly or not been done at all.
We would have liked to see amendments adopted by the
committee. We would have liked to see improvements to this bill, including to
subsection 10.1(2), which leaves the corporation totally free to determine its
own environmental criteria. This clause says that “The Board shall issue a
directive respecting the determination referred to in subsection
(1)”.
As we can see, these projects are not governed by
Canadian laws. How could we accept that the arguments, proposals and
representations of some promoters be taken into consideration and that a kind
of discretionary power be granted to the board of directors of a corporation
such as the Export Development Corporation, when the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act is, to some extent, a requirement under other bills?
In conclusion, we would have liked to see major changes
to this legislation. We would have liked to see some amendments accepted. This
would have prevented giving a discretionary power to the EDC's board of
directors and letting it determine what is good, what environmental guidelines
and what frame of reference are acceptable. We would have liked to see the
provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act implemented.
We deeply regret the fact that even though amendments
were presented in committee, the government refused to accept them. Again, I
want to thank the NGOs working group on the Export Development Corporation,
which I thanked earlier.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Jim Karygiannis
(Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country built on immigrants
who have brought with them a wealth of knowledge of business. In my riding, one
of the most ethnically diverse ridings in Canada, there are many such people
who are engaged in trades.
EDC serves not only people in my riding but all
Canadians who require its much needed support. This support must be enhanced.
Bill C-31 is long overdue. In addition to Canadians travelling the globe
enhancing and promoting Canadian trade there exist many organizations engaged
in international trade that make money and employ Canadians. Trade is the
engine which makes our country competitive and keeps it a leader in the global
economy.
One such individual whom I have known for many years is
Mr. Angelo Rapanos, an individual who has travelled the globe on business and
has excellent trade credentials worldwide. Mr. Rapanos has done multinational
trade deals for Canada worth many millions of dollars. He has created many jobs
with the everlasting assistance of EDC.
EDC changes are needed and they are needed now. Which
part of the bill does my hon. colleague across the way disagree with? Which
part of us wanting to do business and engage our people across the globe does
he disagree with?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras:
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to think that my colleague
opposite did not listen to my speech, as eloquent as it was.
I believe this is one of the most important aspects of
this bill. My colleague made a passionate statement that had absolutely nothing
to do with my speech.
Is it normal that a Canadian economic development
project would be subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, whereas
an export development project outside Canada would not be subject to the
CEAA?
That is what is important. We are not against helping
small and medium size businesses find new export markets, but we are saying
that these projects must comply with the laws that we have passed here in the
House.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
(1645)
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having
risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote is
deferred until 5.30 p.m. today.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you
would find consent to begin private members' hour with the understanding that
the said proceedings will be interrupted at 5.30 p.m. for votes and then resume
after the said votes.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Fisheries and
Oceans
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following
consultations among House leaders, I believe that if you were to seek it you
would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That
ten members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be granted leave
to travel from November 19 to November 24, 2001, to British Columbia and the
State of Washington, to continue its studies on the Canadian Coast Guard's
Marine Communications and Traffic Services and fisheries issues, and that the
said group be composed of 2 Alliance members, 1 Bloc Quebecois member, 1 NDP
member, 1 PC/DR Coalition member and 5 Liberals, and that the necessary staff
do accompany the Committee. |
The Deputy Speaker:
Does the parliamentary secretary have the consent of
the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 4.46 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier
today the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
[English]
Hepatitis C
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)
moved:
|
That,
in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the month of May
as Hepatitis C Awareness Month. |
She said: Mr. Speaker, one of the honours of a member
of parliament is to be able to bring forward initiatives that were truly
created in the community. On behalf of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada, the
Canadian Hemophilia Society and numerous other organizations I am proud to
bring this motion forward.
We presented the motion on March 19. Since that time
the Minister of Health, in response to a question by the member for Hamilton
Mountain, has indicated his support. We hope today's motion will bring momentum
to the issue such that by May we will have this in effect.
One of the toughest things in health care is dealing
with diseases that people do not know they have. It is extraordinarily
important that awareness campaigns be launched to seek out people who may be at
risk but who do not know they ought to be tested.
At the moment between 210,000 and 275,000 people are
infected with hepatitis C in Canada. Only 30% of those people know they have
the virus. They are therefore at extraordinary risk of passing the disease on
to others.
When I graduated from medical school in 1974 we did not
even know of hepatitis C. We had a form of hepatitis that was neither A nor B.
It is only since 1989 that we have begun to name the disease and learn more
about its epidemiology and what needs to be done in terms of prevention.
Like all forms of hepatitis, hepatitis C is an
inflammation of the liver. Some people experience severe symptoms such as
fatigue and jaundice and go on to develop cirrhosis and even liver cancer.
However many people have no symptoms. It is those people we are hoping to help
by designating the month of May hepatitis C awareness month to raise awareness
among those at risk.
There is a hepatitis C prevention, support and research
program within Health Canada. The program, like the first Canadian conference
on hepatitis C that Health Canada supported last May, intends to increase
awareness, promote positive prevention behaviours, expand research activity and
augment the government's capacity to respond to this health threat.
It is important to understand that at the moment the
major group of people acquiring hepatitis C are the people most at risk. Some
of us saw the documentary on CBC about Joyceville Penitentiary where 50% of the
inmates may have hepatitis C. This is an extraordinary health burden in that it
is the greatest indication for liver transplant and therefore a huge burgeoning
cost to our health care system.
The greatest risk is of course among injection drug
users and people who engage in high risk behaviours such as tattooing, body
piercing, acupuncture and even inter-nasal cocaine use.
Current research shows that the risks of transmitting
hepatitis C through sexual intercourse or childbirth are low. However it is
extraordinarily important to note that we are seeing up to 8,000 new hepatitis
C infections each year, of which approximately 2,000 or less than one-quarter
are clinically recognized as acute diseases.
Some 10% to 20% of persons with hepatitis C go on to
develop cirrhosis of the liver. This can prevent the liver from functioning
properly and eventually require a liver transplant to prevent liver failure and
death. Some 1% to 5% of people with hepatitis C and cirrhosis can go on to
develop liver cancer.
It is extraordinarily important that we understand that
although there is a help fight liver disease month and many other months, an
awareness campaign for this silent illness would be an extraordinarily
important step.
(1650)
Hepatitis C would not get its due in the regular liver
month of March. Because it is unique in its scope a specific awareness campaign
is necessary. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of calling AIDS just another
immune disease and putting it in an immune disease month. It is extraordinarily
important that we focus specifically on hepatitis C because of its serious
complications and health burden.
There are no comparable infectious diseases in Canada.
Even AIDS at the moment does not have as many new infections on a yearly basis.
We therefore need an even stronger emphasis on prevention activities for
hepatitis C across Canada. A full month of awareness would be an extremely
strong format for that. Health Canada could then launch its awareness campaign
within that time and benefit from the month of focus.
There are already many activities happening on May 1,
including a candlelight ceremony. It could be difficult to co-ordinate a
nationwide shift to March should we decide it should be included in help fight
liver disease month. The next Canadian conference on hepatitis C will be in
May, if not next year then in 2003 or 2004. We feel strongly that by then we
will desperately need a month of focus on the issue.
In 1998 Health Canada committed $50 million over five
years to develop and design a prevention, support and research program for
Canadians living with hepatitis C. It consists of the five components of
prevention and targets programming to prevent transmission of hepatitis C among
those currently uninfected, particularly high risk youth and injection drug
users.
The program includes community based care and treatment
support as well as the extraordinarily important research component. Then there
is the program's management and delivery. In partnership with other parts of
Health Canada there are other programs, including enhanced hepatitis C
surveillance sites, research into hepatitis C among aboriginal street youth and
the Canadian Viral Hepatitis Network.
On behalf of these important volunteers who feel their
work could be enhanced and made easier by the designation as such, I welcome
the minister's support on May 17 of this year. I hope we will shortly hear an
announcement from Health Canada regarding the issue.
(1655)
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No.
303 and I thank my colleague for bringing it forward. I also wish to salute the
hard work of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada and the Canadian Hemophilia
Society in recommending the motion. They have done a lot of work to promote
awareness of this disease and to support the victims of hepatitis C.
We all need to understand a little more about the
disease and the problems that are caused because of it. I understand there was
a conference in Montreal on hepatitis C this past spring with 72 speakers and
900 participants. That is a great example of federal-provincial co-operation
coming together to bring awareness to this issue. I would like to congratulate
the organizers of that conference and both levels of government for bringing
together a conference to address the plight of those who are victimized by
hepatitis C.
I remind the House of the individual who was in the
gallery here last spring, Joey Haché. Joey, as a young boy of 12 or 14 years of
age, was victimized by hepatitis C between the compensation years of 1986 to
1990. He was asking for compensation that was due to him after a three year
plight of trying to get compensation. He brought awareness to his plight when
he was here and before he got home that day there was a phone call that his
settlement had come through. It is absolutely amazing that a government would
work so slowly in this case.
There are many facts that need to be known about
hepatitis C. We have talked about it many times in the House over the years. I
will dismiss with going through some of the actual problems of hepatitis C
because I think we all understand it needs further attention. The idea of an
awareness month is something that would help in that vein.
We must help those who are living with this terrible
disease on a daily basis and we must do whatever we can to prevent any further
spread of it. It is worthwhile noting that hepatitis C is much easier to
contract than HIV and that some of the strategies used to prevent HIV are not
helping to reduce the rates of hepatitis C.
It is something that has been brought up in the health
committee, which I vice chair. As deputy health critic I am concerned with
prevention in this area, with the idea that we should do whatever we can to
keep our blood in this country as safe as possible. The safety of our blood
system is being challenged as we speak. We learned a lesson with what happened
with hepatitis C and we dare not ignore it.
The idea of an awareness month is very important. The
way the Liberal government dealt with hepatitis C and tainted blood has left a
shameful legacy. The tainted blood scandal was a dark chapter in the nation's
recent history. Thousands of victims contracted hepatitis C out of no fault of
their own when they were most in need. They contracted this disease from a
blood system that they were depending upon when they were ill and needed blood
transfusions.
I have a problem with that situation because not only
were they let down in their time of most desperate need, but when compensation
finally came it was restricted to a four year period between 1986 and 1990.
Many Canadians contracted hepatitis C through the blood system outside that
four year period. Thousands of victims were let down by the federal government.
Many who did qualify, like Joey Haché, had to wait years before they were
compensated. That is a terrible legacy for the government.
Thankfully there were some bright spots. Some of the
provincial governments rose to the occasion, such as Quebec, Ontario and
Manitoba. Again, there was co-operation among levels of government. They said
they would compensate regardless and they had their own compensation programs.
They are to be commended. However, many victims still continue to wait for
justice.
(1700)
The Canadian hepatitis C health consortium filed a
class action complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the
federal government and eight provinces. It claimed that victims infected with
hepatitis C through tainted blood were treated differently from those with
HIV-AIDS.
According to Vicky Boddy, the group's president,
HIV-AIDS victims were receiving close to a quarter of a million dollars in
compensation. Their drugs were covered and they could access disability
insurance under the Canada pension plan, whereas victims of hepatitis C got
very little compensation, if at all, and were denied drug coverage and
disability pensions.
Boddy contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood when
she received multiple transfusions in 1994. She says that everyone should be
treated the same. There should not be a distinction when it comes to hepatitis
C and HIV-AIDS. Both diseases are killers. She says that their stories are just
as horrifying as the stories we hear from people with HIV-AIDS. The disease has
changed many aspects of her life as she used to know it.
She noted that thousands of Canadians were dying from
hepatitis C every year. The government still has an opportunity to partially
right some of the wrongs it inflicted on some of those outside that four year
period from 1986 to 1990.
It was brought out in the health committee that there
is still a surplus of some $900 million in the federal-provincial compensation
fund that was set aside to deal with this issue. The money was to be used to
help those excluded from the plan. According to Mike McCarthy, a policy adviser
to the Ontario health ministry:
The numbers reflect that they grossly
overstated the numbers of victims that would qualify from 1986 to 1990 in the
package and grossly overpredicted the number of people who were excluded.
|
What a gesture it would be if the federal government
used the occasion of this motion to compensate all hepatitis C victims who were
infected through tainted blood outside the four year period.
I reiterate my support for the motion. This gesture
however will be tainted if it is not accompanied by actual deeds. Unless the
government acts hon. members can be sure that we will use the opportunity of
hepatitis awareness month each and every May because we are prepared to bring
awareness to this issue every year.
I look forward to next spring if the motion is not
agreed to. I will bring it forward each and every year and as long as it takes
until the Liberal government gets on its knees and apologizes for the way it
has treated hepatitis C victims who contracted the disease outside the four
year period between 1986 and 1990. I appreciate the idea of having an awareness
month. Justice needs to be served and we need to have the political will to
make sure it happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate our colleague
who brought forward this motion. I would remind the House that we have debated
this idea of an awareness month, which would be the month of May, on several
occasions. If memory serves me well, last May the New Democratic Party proposed
a motion to that effect.
I wish members of the government majority would have
been just as enthusiastic about that motion. I wish they would have been just
as enthusiastic when we studied the Krever report.
Members will recall that, after three years of inquiry,
the first recommendation made by the Krever commission, which had the status of
a royal commission, was that all hepatitis C victims would receive compensation
regardless of when they contracted the disease.
We know the government agreed to compensate those
hepatitis C victims who became contaminated through blood transfusions, but
only between 1986 and 1990. Thousands of Canadians were ignored, particularly
those who contracted the disease before 1986 or after 1990.
It is rather shameful that, despite a royal commission,
despite representations made by several groups, despite the support of all
opposition parties in this House and despite the fact that three provinces,
namely Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, have put in place their own
compensation schemes, the federal government has not yet followed up on the
recommendation contained in the Krever report.
Is that not the role of the government? The government
said that it did not have access to the kind of testing that would have enabled
it to detect the presence of the virus. However when such a tragedy hits
someone--and we know there are different levels of hepatitis C--and it is the
result of a blood transfusion, which is a public responsibility, is it not the
role of the government to compensate these people and to help them get through
such ordeal?
The fact is that hepatitis C is affecting increasing
numbers of people. Each year, year in and year out, between 8,000 and 10,000
people acquire hepatitis C, but only 25% to 30% of them are aware of it. These
people could be made a bit more aware of precautions to be taken. They might be
provided with health care and be able to eventually come to grips with this new
reality in their lives.
When we say that only 25% to 30% of people are aware
they are hepatitis C carriers, this means that 70% are not. With this disease,
there must be a clear differentiation between those who are symptomatic and
asymptomatic, those who are contagious and those who are not. That is why the
whole matter of prevention and awareness is so important.
Most certainly, there is not much funding available.
Reference has been made to $15 million for the five components of Canada's
hepatitis C policy. Fifteen million is most certainly very little, considering
the significance of the disease.
True, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Hepatitis
A has been known about for some years, and hepatitis B for several decades, but
it was only in the early 1970s that we were able to understand the entire
symptomology of hepatitis C, to understand its origins and to have a clearer
medical and clinical picture of this medical reality.
Once again, we are in agreement with the principle of
having an awareness month.
(1705)
We want this awareness to involve all the partners,
including the Government of Canada, because it has a responsibility in
epidemioliogy and in certain research programs, the provinces, naturally,
because they are the primary health care providers, and we must not forget, the
various community groups.
In each of our communities, there are groups comprised
of volunteers, people who assume responsibilities on boards or who, by
providing volunteer support to others who are infected, can provide real
comfort.
So a real battle, real hepatitis C awareness, involves
a partnership between the governments, federal and provincial, and the various
community groups and public bodies, such as CLSCs, hospitals and all care
providers.
We will therefore vigorously support this motion. I
hope that next May we will have a real public awareness campaign. I also hope
that, in the short term, the government will really follow up on the Krever
commission and that it will act on its first recommendation and ensure that
those who need financial support, or drugs, may find comfort in the federal
government, which has the means of its policies and that, as the first
recommendation of the Krever report proposes, we may have a compensation plan
without regard to chronology.
(1710)
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Paul's for
bringing forward this valuable motion to the House to further debate the
concerns of victims of hepatitis C.
I want to correct a misconception from the previous two
speakers. Canada already has a hepatitis awareness month, which is the month of
May. I am pleased to say that I had a private member's bill which was drawn and
debated in the last parliament. We tried to make it votable but unfortunately
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of health said no. However the
minister, who has his own concern, announced at the hepatitis conference in
Montreal that from that day forward the month of May would be known as
hepatitis awareness month.
Even though the motion deals just with hepatitis C,
those who follow the concerns of hepatitis know that there are seven different
strains which have infected close to 740,000 Canadians from coast to coast to
coast, with hepatitis C infecting over 300,000 Canadians.
I know the hon. member for St. Paul's has done a lot of
work on behalf of people afflicted with hepatitis C. She should be
congratulated by all members of parliament on both sides of the House for her
continuous effort in this field
To reiterate, the month of May already recognizes the
seven strains of hepatitis. The member for Yellowhead said he would like to
bring forward recognition and awareness of hepatitis year in and year out. I
encourage him to do so in his householders, mail outs, in his town hall
meetings in his riding or for that matter throughout the country.
I know three individuals who have worked closely on the
hepatitis file. They are Joey Haché and his family from Ottawa and two people
from my riding specifically, Mr. Neil Van Dusen and Mr. Bruce Devenne. All
three have hepatitis C. All three fought hard, not just for themselves but for
all Canadians afflicted with hepatitis C, for some sort of financial assistance
from the government. However the minister made a decision to make the window
between 1986 and 1990. Unfortunately, anyone who contracted hepatitis C outside
that window was not entitled to any kind of compensation or assistance in that
regard.
I do thank the provinces involved for picking up some
of the slack, but unfortunately people who have a disease of that nature are
unable to work. While that kind of funding was welcomed, it was not enough to
assist them. Canadians, and especially the Minister of Health and the
government in charge, need to promote health wellness wherever we
can.
The contraction of hepatitis C over the years has not
just been through operations in hospitals and blood transfusions. It also comes
from needles and other interactions that Canadians involve themselves in on a
daily basis. We need to bring awareness to unsuspecting Canadians who may
involve themselves in activities of that nature. We need to make them aware
that whatever decisions they make may have dire consequences on their long term
health or some may even die as a consequence.
I am not just talking about HIV-AIDS, which transmitted
sexually or through needles. I am also talking about hepatitis which is very
serious and contagious disease that can be contracted through various forms.
One of those ways is through needles.
I encourage all Canadians who are listening to tell
everyone, including their municipalities and health boards that more awareness
of this very serious disease would go a long way toward the education of
Canadians. Thus hopefully we can eradicate the disease from not only the face
of the country but from the planet as well.
The New Democratic Party definitely supports the
motion. Again, I thank the member for St. Paul's for bringing the issue to the
floor of the House of Commons.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this
debate. I recall the debate and the problem about compensation for victims of
hepatitis. The tone was slightly different, and we had a much more heated
debate. Let us not forget what happened.
A number of my colleagues have raised the matter of
compensation. Unfortunately, there are still problems. People have yet to
receive all of the money they are entitled to under the agreement. Some have
found themselves outside the terms announced by the federal government so that
they could not benefit from the terms of the agreement.
As my colleagues have said, the motion before us
concerns hepatitis C, a new disease. It was identified in 1989, that is only 12
years ago.
It is not the first time either that there is talk of
making May a month for hepatitis C awareness. As my colleague in the New
Democratic Party said, a bill was tabled in the House in this respect, but
unfortunately it was not declared votable.
In response to a question, the Minister of Health
announced that May would be hepatitis awareness month in Canada but this does
not detract from the quality of the motion put forward today, far from
it.
On May 17, the Minister of Health said, and I
quote:
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has
designated the month of May as Hepatitis Awareness Month in Canada. I thank
colleagues in the House for encouraging that step to be taken. |
I do not recall that we supported him on this issue,
not that we would have had any problem doing so.
Employees from my office did some research on the
department's website. I do not know whether they were going at it the wrong way
but they found no press release confirming this. They have searched Health
Canada's website and found absolutely nothing.
It is therefore a bit strange that, twice now, members
of the House have taken steps to designate a hepatitis awareness month in
Canada, specifically for hepatitis C as this evening's motion suggests, that
the minister has taken a decision, and that the New Democratic Party member
says that this month has already been designated, when we can find nothing on
the Health Canada website.
It appears that everyone agrees with the motion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you seek the consent of the House
to make this motion votable.
I repeat that the motion put forward this evening has
unanimous approval. With the fine speeches we have heard, with the support of
the government members and of opposition members, unanimous consent can be
sought, because everyone is in agreement. I believe that with unanimous consent
we could vote on the motion put forward this evening and officially give our
support to the Minister of Health.
In closing, we greatly appreciate the member's work and
I once again seek unanimous consent so that the House can officially vote on
the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk
about an important subject that concerns all Canadians. I am talking about
hepatitis C. I want to congratulate the member for St. Paul's for her
dedication to this cause and for her efforts to have the month of May
recognized as hepatitis C awareness month.
I know the member has worked tirelessly to defend this
cause and I am glad she decided to raise the issue in the House.
Earlier this year, a motion to make the month of May
hepatitis awareness month was debated in the House. The motion before us today
is very much in line with the previous motion.
I will use the rest of my time to talk about hepatitis
C and the initiatives taken by Health Canada to deal with this most important
public health concern.
Hepatitis C is a virus that can be transmitted by
blood. It infects the liver and can cause serious damage. A test to detect
hepatitis C was developed in 1989 and was introduced in Canada when it became
commercially available in June 1990. Before that, in cases of hepatitis of an
unknown type, it was referred to as non-A, non-B hepatitis.
Among the groups most at risk of contracting hepatitis
C are those who received blood transfusions before screening for the virus
began in 1990, persons exposed to contaminated needles, and health care staff
who suffer needlestick accidents with contaminated needles.
It is believed that the risk of transmission to
newborns or transmission via sexual contact with an infected person is
low.
In approximately 10% of cases, the source of infection
is unknown or undisclosed. According to estimates, up to 8% of
Canadians--somewhere between 210,000 and 275,000 people--carry the hepatitis C
virus.
While some people may experience symptoms such as
fatigue or jaundice, many others present no symptoms at the beginning of
infection. The hepatitis C virus progresses slowly within the body. Symptoms
may take up to 20 or even 30 years to manifest themselves after the initial
infection.
In 1998 the federal government, more specifically
Health Canada, allocated $50 million over five years to design a prevention,
support and research program to assist Canadians with hepatitis C.
In addition, over the next 20 years the government will
transfer $300 million to provincial and territorial governments in order to
provide the medical care that people with hepatitis C require. This financial
assistance guarantees that no Canadians, regardless of where they live, will be
forced to pay for needed care and treatment, particularly services and
treatment such as new drug therapies and home care nursing.
One of the main objectives of the prevention, support
and research program is to educate Canadians and raise awareness about
hepatitis C.
Consultations with key stakeholders revealed that the
greatest challenge for an awareness campaign would be to inform and educate
target groups without frightening them. It is of the utmost importance that
messages not create false perceptions regarding the virus, and that they not
contribute to stigmatizing those persons who are infected with or affected by
the virus.
Among the general public, increased awareness of
hepatitis C will help create an environment that is supportive of people
infected with or affected by this disease.
For persons who are unaware that they are infected,
early diagnosis offers the possibility of adapting their lifestyle to slow the
progression of the disease. As well, there are promising developments in
treatment options.
The hepatitis C program includes care and treatment
support. This component is aimed at raising hepatitis C awareness by making the
public better informed about the disease and the risk factors associated with
it. During its first two years of existence, the program was aimed mainly at
increasing capabilities and developing tools for professionals and other care
givers as well as community support groups by providing medical and practical
information on hepatitis C.
Prevention and community support are also part of the
hepatitis C prevention, support and research program. Community support
includes programs aimed at supporting both a strong community response to the
needs of people with or living with hepatitis C, and a significant role for
community organizations in the program .
Over the past year and a half, Health Canada has
financed about 120 community initiatives at the local level, including peer
support, hepatitis C education, needs assessments, training and strengthening
of community capabilities.
(1720)
Among the current hepatitis C national initiatives,
there is the establishment at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse of a
database on hepatitis C and injectable drugs; the preparation of a series of
working and research papers on topics such as injectable drug use and
prevention of hepatitis C.
The research component of the program has increased the
amount of available research results, bolstered the research community
capabilities, and added a wealth of information to the data used to make
decisions regarding hepatitis C policies and programs.
This component has financed 27 research projects and 11
research and salary awards through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research,
and has contributed to the financing of a research chair on liver disease at
the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Centre Foundation.
Several projects have been financed including HCV-HIV
co-infection assessments, the establishment of social networks for injectable
drug users as well as a review of the literature on animal models.
In co-operation with the blood borne pathogens division
of Health Canada, the research on hepatitis C component has financed better
monitoring sites, control of VHC, studies on the economic burden of VHC, and on
its prevalence in first nation people and Inuit in four communities.
In partnership with the bureau of HIV/AIDS, STD and TB,
the program has financed research on VHC and the young aboriginals on the
street.
Finally, the research component has contributed to the
creation of the Canadian network on viral hepatitis.
The implementation of the hepatitis C prevention,
support and research program is a constant reminder that the Government of
Canada is looking after problems such as those raised in the hon. member's
motion.
For example, Health Canada supported the proclamation
by the Canadian Liver Foundation of the month of March as the Help Fight Liver
Disease Month. The hepatitis C virus can cause serious liver diseases.
Health Canada has been one of the main proponents of
the first Canadian conference on hepatitis C, held in Montreal in May 2001.
This event has been a convergence point for researchers on hepatitis C,
caregivers for those affected by hepatitis C and people infected by the virus
or affected by the disease.
This instructive conference was an opportunity to
present research results, to share ideas, and to update one's knowledge. The
Canadian Hemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Society of Canada, the Canadian
Liver Foundation and other not for profit organizations have co-operated with
Health Canada so that this conference would be beneficial for all
Canadians.
(1725)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The time provided for the consideration of private
members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable
item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
* * *
[English]
Suspension of
Sitting
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
The House is suspended until 5.30 p.m.
(The sitting of the House
was suspended at 5.28 p.m.)
* * *
Sitting
Resumed
The House resumed at 5.30
p.m.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1730)
[English]
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act
The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-32, an act to implement the
Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the
Republic of Costa Rica, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill
C-32.
Call in the members.
* * *
(1800)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 157)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bachand
(Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Benoit
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Burton
Byrne
Caccia
Cadman
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Casson
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cullen
Cummins
Cuzner
Day
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Doyle
Dromisky
Drouin
Duncan
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Elley
Epp
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Fitzpatrick
Folco
Fry
Gagliano
Gallant
Godfrey
Goldring
Goodale
Graham
Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harris
Harvard
Harvey
Hearn
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George--Peace
River)
Hinton
Ianno
Jackson
Jaffer
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
Lunn (Saanich--Gulf
Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
MacAulay
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McNally
McTeague
Meredith
Merrifield
Mitchell
Moore
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Obhrai
Owen
Pagtakhan
Pallister
Pankiw
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Proulx
Rajotte
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Richardson
Ritz
Robillard
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Schmidt
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Speller
Spencer
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Tirabassi
Toews
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Vellacott
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wilfert
Williams
Wood
Total: 201
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Bourgeois
Brien
Cardin
Comartin
Crête
Davies
Desjarlais
Dubé
Duceppe
Fournier
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Herron
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lill
Loubier
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
Ménard
Nystrom
Paquette
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proctor
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
St-Hilaire
Stoffer
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Venne
Wayne
Total: 48
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Charbonneau
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
Fontana
Girard-Bujold
Gray (Windsor West)
Valeri
Total: 8
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time
and passed)
* * *
[English]
Supply
Allotted Day--International Aid
Policy
[Supply]
The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the
motion.
The Speaker:
Pursuant to the order adopted Monday, October 29, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
opposition motion standing in the name of the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent
in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting
on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris:
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be voting
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois are in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party who
are present will vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill:
Mr. Speaker, members of the PC/DR coalition present
this evening will be voting in favour of the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 158)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bachand
(Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bennett
Bergeron
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Borotsik
Boudria
Bourgeois
Brien
Brison
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Cardin
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien
Clark
Coderre
Collenette
Comartin
Comuzzi
Copps
Crête
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Doyle
Dromisky
Drouin
Dubé
Duceppe
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fournier
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grey (Edmonton North)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Prince George--Peace
River)
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore)
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laframboise
Laliberte
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lill
Lincoln
Longfield
Loubier
Lunn (Saanich--Gulf
Islands)
MacAulay
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marceau
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCormick
McDonough
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McNally
McTeague
Ménard
Meredith
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Normand
Nystrom
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pagtakhan
Pankiw
Paquette
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Perron
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pratt
Proctor
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Saada
Sauvageau
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Hilaire
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Stoffer
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 205
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Benoit
Breitkreuz
Burton
Cadman
Casson
Chatters
Cummins
Day
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Gallant
Goldring
Grewal
Harris
Hill (Macleod)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
Merrifield
Moore
Obhrai
Pallister
Penson
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
Stinson
Toews
Vellacott
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Total: 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Charbonneau
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
Fontana
Girard-Bujold
Gray (Windsor West)
Valeri
Total: 8
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
[English]
Export Development Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker:
Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the third
reading stage of Bill C-31.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, again if you seek it I think you would
find consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberals members voting
yes.
(1805)
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris:
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance will be voting no to
the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote no
on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present are voting no to
the motion.
Mr. Jay Hill:
Mr. Speaker, coalition members are opposed to the
motion.
* * *
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 159)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Augustine
Bagnell
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Bonwick
Boudria
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carignan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chrétien
Coderre
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Cullen
Cuzner
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fry
Gagliano
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Ianno
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton
Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Laliberte
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Malhi
Maloney
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Mitchell
Murphy
Myers
Nault
Normand
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Owen
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Pratt
Proulx
Redman
Reed (Halton)
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Serré
Sgro
Shepherd
Speller
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress
Hills--Grasslands)
Bachand
(Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bigras
Blaikie
Borotsik
Bourgeois
Breitkreuz
Brien
Brison
Burton
Cadman
Cardin
Casson
Chatters
Clark
Comartin
Crête
Cummins
Davies
Day
Desjarlais
Doyle
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gagnon (Champlain)
Gallant
Gauthier
Godin
Goldring
Grewal
Grey (Edmonton North)
Guay
Guimond
Harris
Hearn
Herron
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George--Peace
River)
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lill
Loubier
Lunn (Saanich--Gulf
Islands)
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
MacKay
(Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Marceau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
McDonough
McNally
Ménard
Meredith
Merrifield
Moore
Nystrom
Obhrai
Pallister
Pankiw
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Proctor
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Robinson
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Stoffer
Strahl
Thompson (New Brunswick
Southwest)
Toews
Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la
Mitis)
Vellacott
Venne
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Total: 108
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Charbonneau
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
Fontana
Girard-Bujold
Gray (Windsor West)
Valeri
Total: 8
|
|
The Speaker:
I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time
and passed)
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
[English]
Library of
Parliament
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to raise
with my colleagues something that has troubled me concerning the Library of
Parliament, a tool that is essential to us.
I had raised the question with the member for Ottawa
West--Nepean as the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy back in May
and requested an opportunity to respond to the question because I was not
satisfied. I will break this into two parts, the issue itself and then the
matter of accountability and the difficulty I and other colleagues will find
ourselves in in trying to make the library accountable.
The difficulty is that the Library of Parliament issued
a request for proposal for a news gathering service. One company that wanted to
respond to the request for proposal uses a different system than the system
that was specified in the request for proposal. It tried to get the library to
correct that by calling for a generic system as opposed to a specific system on
which the computer system was based. The library proceeded
nonetheless.
The company appealed to the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal. Through a series of protracted discussions and so forth, at the
end of the day, the tribunal ruled that the library was in error, that the
library had to correct its request for proposal or start over. This was a
rather lengthy effort.
The library concluded by saying it was cancelling the
request, that it did not need the service any more because it had fixed the
problem. This begs the question as to why it was not fixed in the first place.
The response it gave for cancelling the request for proposal and not issuing
another one as per the CITT ruling was that it had used up all its money in
defending itself at the CITT.
I have a problem with that. This was not a one year
project; it was an ongoing one. Perhaps it could have delayed it, as I hope is
the intent of the Library of Parliament, but not cancelled it outright, never
to revisit it and never call for a proposal for implementing the system that
might be required.
I have some problems with the rationale the Library of
Parliament is using. The biggest problem I have is the total lack of
accountability of the Library of Parliament to the House.
The Library of Parliament is accountable to the
Speakers, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker in the Senate, yet members
in the House cannot ask questions of the Speaker. We have to go to the Board of
Internal Economy, yet we are told that the Board of Internal Economy is not
responsible for the Library of Parliament.
Once, I managed to ask a question of the representative
of the Board of Internal Economy in the House on the basis that the library
offers services to the members, I am not sure that the Speaker would again
allow me to do that.
We cannot ask a question of the Speaker. The library is
not accountable to the Board of Internal Economy. The joint Senate and House of
Commons committee on the library has not met. It has not even been struck.
Therefore, I cannot ask a question of the chair of that committee in the House.
There is no accountability. We are now almost into November. We have been
sitting for a month and a half now and that committee has yet to be
struck.
At some point the rules of the House are going to have
to be changed so that the Library of Parliament is accountable to the members
of the House. Then we can get information about the library without having to
go through the hoops and a system that does not seem to work.
(1810)
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my answer of May 30, the
Board of Internal Economy does not normally deal with issues relating to the
Library of Parliament. However, in the hope of clarifying this issue, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to respond, on behalf of the board, to the
member's question.
[English]
On May 30, 2001, the hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier
raised the question concerning a request for proposal, which in fact is a call
for tender, issued by the Library of Parliament for an electronic news
monitoring service and which had been referred to the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal.
P&L Communications filed a complaint with the trade
tribunal related to the library's procurement process, arguing that the library
was subject to the agreement on internal trade and was therefore subject to the
authority of the tribunal.
As the library's original deadline for the filing of
proposals for the tender was June 1, it appeared unlikely that the trade
tribunal would hear the case prior to the deadline. Therefore, at the request
of an hon. member, the co-chair of the Standing Committee of the Library of
Parliament, the parliamentary library agreed to extend the bid until June 31,
2001.
After several exchanges of arguments by the parties, on
July 24, 2001, the tribunal informed the Library of Parliament that it had
ruled in favour of P&L Communications and that it would issue its reasons
for the determination at a later date.
According to the library's legal adviser and pursuant
to the CITT act, the library had the obligation to inform the tribunal of its
response to its decision on or before the deadline of August 13,
2001.
In light of this situation and based on an article of
the library's request for tender, which stipulates that the Library of
Parliament may at its discretion cancel and/or re-issue this RFP at any time,
the library decided to cancel the request for proposal immediately to ensure
that it would respect the reasons for determination of the tribunal.
The decision by the library was based on the following
reasons.
First, as a result of the tribunal's decision the
library had incurred legal costs. It was required to pay both the petitioner's
and its own legal costs and, therefore, had insufficient budget to proceed with
the project.
Second, since the request for proposal was posted the
library has been able, with the technical assistance of the information
services directorate of the House of Commons, to make improvements to the
existing electronic news monitoring service, allowing the library to maintain
these services for the foreseeable future.
(1815)
[Translation]
In a memo dated September 25 and addressed to both
chairs and to the members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of
Parliament, the parliamentary librarian said that the library never intended to
defy the tribunal. He also said that all parliamentarians could be assured
that, from now on, requests for proposals from the Library of Parliament would
comply with procurement rules.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger:
Mr. Speaker, I find this answer very weak since the
fact that the Library of Parliament is accountable to this House was not even
mentioned.
[English]
We have a situation where the Library of Parliament
serving members is totally unaccountable to the members of the House. We have
no access to the library. We cannot ask questions of anyone speaking on behalf
of the library in the House and the committee that is supposed to be overseeing
it has not even been struck.
I would implore the chief government whip to make sure
that the committee is struck as rapidly as possible because there is throughout
this whole issue a sense of lack of respect for the members of the House by the
library.
We have to get to the bottom of it. Why would they not
have fixed the problem? Twice they requested proposals and twice they
cancelled. Twice they were wrong.
All this mess, if I can call it that, has to be
investigated by the committee which has not been struck. At the very least, the
government should get on with striking the committee so that it can do its
work.
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I can only point out that the government
is not responsible for the operation of parliament, but I believe the member
has raised an important question.
It is not a question, frankly, that he raised in his
original question in the House. The library committee will be having its first
meeting later this week. It was delayed simply because the person proposed to
be nominated as chair of the library committee was not in the country for the
last couple of weeks.
The committee will be meeting. I suggest very strongly
that the member take his concerns there and that he encourage the committee, as
I will do personally, to pursue this matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)