Bill C-31 (Historical)

Export Development Act

An Act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Petitions

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by literally thousands of first nations citizens who call upon government to reject the first nations governance agreement. They believe it is being imposed on them in the same manner as the Indian Act and Bill C-31 was imposed. They believe it will reduce first nations governments to municipalities and could impact their treaty rights.

They urge all members of parliament to drop the first nations governance agreement and to negotiate a more satisfactory resolve.

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion because it gives me a chance to submit a kind of wish list, the 12 things that I would do if I was Prime Minister, so the opposition will just have to bear with me as I go through because they have had their opportunity to say what they would do if they formed the government.

If I led a government on this side what I would first do is reform the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. That is number one. These two bits of legislation, when they were originally introduced, the Access to Information Act in 1983, it was the second piece of legislation of its kind in the world, the second freedom of information legislation.

Now, it is sad to say it is now lagging behind just about every freedom of information legislation elsewhere in the world, and similarly the Privacy Act. It is most important and in the interests of the nation to amend both pieces of legislation in order not only to enhance the public's right to know but to create efficiencies in government in order to make Canada a globally competitive nation.

Secondly, I would write legislation requiring charities to be answerable in terms of transparency and corporate governance. We have a $100 billion industry, actually a $122 billion industry if we count the non profit organizations, that is run without any kind of legislative transparency whatsoever.

We know anecdotally that there are problems all through that industry. We know of small scam charities, but most importantly the large hospitals, the health care institutions in this country which spend some $40 billion a year are charities, and they are not transparent or they are not required to conform to legislative standards of corporate governance. I believe if they were then our problems with financing health care would be solved because we would save billions if only we could rein in the way administrators manage the health care industry. I just in passing point out that the CEO of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, for example, makes $500,000 a year, twice that of the Prime Minister.

Thirdly, I would amend the old Bill C-31, the amendment to the Indian Act that was passed in 1985 that created over 100,000 new Indians, many of them with no connection to reserves, no connections to their Indian heritage whatsoever. It was intended to correct a problem with respect to the spouses of people who married off the reserve. It has created a nightmare where we are now passing in the House race based legislation that discriminates based on race in our urban communities.

I was the only one on this side of the House to vote against the youth justice bill Senate amendments that came to the House because what they did is they required the courts to consider race, whether a person is an aboriginal or not, in sentencing and I would say that is unacceptable.

Fourthly, the federal government must rein in gambling. It is an issue that is not talked about at all in the House anymore but you will remember that a change in the criminal code actually has passed to the provinces this incredible cash cow which is called casino gambling and video lottery terminals. This has now created a $27 billion industry, if we will, that preys on the weaknesses of our fellow Canadians.

I have travelled around the country and I always go to casinos to see what the casinos are like, and each of those casinos preys on a different sector of the community, and for example the casino in Winnipeg has video lottery terminals that are operated by a nickel. In other words, the clientele in Winnipeg is not sufficiently wealthy to put in $1 or $5 so the terminals are directed towards getting the money from the people on social welfare, the really poor people, and so we have nickel terminals and we are creating a massive addiction.

The provinces are pretending that this is okay because they are taking the profits and giving them to charities, and I deplore the fact that charities are financing themselves on money that is obviously coming from people who are either addicted or cannot afford the losses that they incur when they go to casino gambling.

Fifthly, I would change the general federal policy with respect to aboriginal affairs. We have to look at it again because what has happened is that it is not working. I spent three years on the Indian and Northern Affairs committee and my heart really went out to the witnesses from the various aboriginal communities across the country that came to the committee. Something is very, very wrong with our policy because what we are doing is we are creating a culture of dependence rather than a culture of pride. That should be a number one priority for any new government, to actually come back and re-examine where we are going wrong in our aboriginal affairs policy.

Sixth, I would revisit the Supreme Court Act. This parliament forgets that the supreme court is beneath parliament. In other words parliament is the supreme court of this land, not like in the United States. We have the supreme court making decisions when it does not even have a majority of the judges onside, decisions that the Government of Canada interprets as binding decisions, as binding interpretations of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I should tell you that the supreme court judges themselves can make these incredibly important decisions based on only three hours of testimony, most of the work actually being done by law clerks. We have to take a look as a parliament and satisfy ourselves that the supreme court is serving the nation the way it must.

Seventh, on that note I think we should return to the Singh decision. The Singh decision was a Supreme Court of Canada minority decision in the mid-1980s that the Government of Canada has used as justification for saying that anyone who lands on Canadian soil, any foreign alien, must be treated as though that person were a citizen and have access to all due processes of law and all the benefits of Canadian society.

Madam Speaker, if you actually examined the Singh decision you would find real doubt that this was the intention of the court at the time, but we have to go back to that because we are one of the few nations in the world where foreign aliens can come onto our soil and have all the rights of citizenship. We have to address that problem because it is causing all kinds of difficulties in immigration and refugee policy.

Number eight, I would take back the tax points that we have given to the provinces on health care. We have to take control of health care in the provinces because what we know as a federal parliament is we are putting money out to the provinces for health care and they are using it in other ways, so we have to get control of health care spending. We have to make the medical health of Canadians a federal responsibility centrally because I believe the provinces are failing in their obligation in that regard, and they are forever saying that the federal government is not giving enough to the provinces but in fact if we took back the tax points that we have given the provinces I think we would more than bring the spending on health care under control, and we could combine that with better transparency with hospital administration.

Number nine, I would declare that Canada is indivisible. I was never comfortable with the clarity bill in its suggestion, and it is a suggestion only, that this House could actually decide that one province or another could walk away from the Confederation. As a government or a prime minister I would say simply that as long as I was around and as long as my government was around this would never be on the table. This is one country.

Number ten, I would dump our equity employment policy and all gender based government programs. Our gender based programs were brought in way back in 1973 as a result of a report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In 1973 they were undoubtedly relevant but they are not relevant in 2002. I do not believe the women of this country by and large, by the grand large, actually feel that they have to be treated in special fashion. They do not. This is a land in which there is equality of opportunity regardless of gender, and I think it is a disgrace that we suggest that women are in some way inferior and that they have to have special treatment, so I would scrap that entire program.

Concerning number 11, I would dismantle the arm's length agencies like the CRTC. Here again there has been a long policy of the government avoiding its responsibility and its accountability.

The last one is that I would change the oath of citizenship so that it reflected the values of Canadians, the values of the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House almost a year ago in support of the Canadian Alliance motion requesting the establishment of a national sex offender registry. During that same period of time on the other side of the House the Liberal government unanimously stood in support of its commitment to set up a registry by January 30, 2002.

As of today, February 5, 2002, we do not have a national sex offender registry in this country. We do not have one because this Liberal government has failed again to meet another one of its commitments. It failed in this regard as it has failed to keep many of its 1993 red book promises.

The subject of today's motion is to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prepare and bring in a bill establishing a registry given the fact that this government has failed to do so in spite of its promise and in spite of its commitment.

The motion we presented last March and which government members voted in favour of was the establishment of a national registry containing the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. We proposed that every sex offender be required to register in person at his or her local police station at least once a year and provide any updated information, including a change in address.

This proposal is nothing new. Ontario already has such a registry. Christopher's law, or Bill C-31, received royal assent in April 2000, establishing a registry to:

enhance public safety by providing law enforcement agencies with a modern, reliable and effective electronic tool and support services to track sex offenders in our communities and to improve the investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

I also stood in the House last March cautioning members on the other side, particularly those members who were in the House prior to 1993, to carefully consider their position on a national sex offender registry. I did so because I had a copy of an April 1993 Liberal document entitled “A Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice Issues”.

Contained within this document were a number of recommendations put forward by the then official opposition, the Liberal Party, to do the following, and I quote, “to combat Canada's growing violent crime problem”. One of the Liberals' very own post-government recommendations was, and again I quote from that document, “to support the establishment of a national registry of convicted child abusers”.

The rationale for this recommendation, and again I will quote directly from this Liberal document, states:

Sex offenders represent almost 20 per cent of the incarcerated population and 10 per cent of the conditionally released population. These numbers are not an accurate representation as they include only those sentenced to two years or more in prison. Actual figures are much higher.

Over the past five years there has been a 20.4 per cent increase in the rate of admission of sex offenders. Evidently more and more sex offenders will be reintegrating into Canadian communities.

The document goes on, however, to state that:

Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs for sexual offenders are sorely lacking...It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or rehabilitation therapy.

Much of the information used by the Liberals to support their 1993 recommendations for establishing a sex offender registry remains the very same today. Nothing has changed.

In fact, a review of the research and the website of the statistics branch of the Correctional Service of Canada reveals that the majority of the studies done on sex offenders and recidivism rates are outdated. The statistics in most cases are more than 10 years old.

I am confident that findings today would be similar to those findings in the late 1980s and 1990s indicating that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group, with an estimated 40% reoffending within five years of their release.

In 1990 the ministry of the solicitor general struck a working group on the management and treatment of sex offenders, “as a result of a number of factors, including the rapid growth of the federal sex offender population”. The working group reported its findings and recommendations in March 1990. These were some of the key findings.

First, offender treatment programs have shown limited results.

Second, practitioners in the field of sex offender treatment do not claim to cure sex offenders. Rather the treatment strategy is to manage the risk of reoffending.

Third, there are not enough experts to meet the demand for sex offender treatment and the limitations of treatment are recognized.

This research, which was based on research produced by the Correctional Service of Canada, clearly demonstrates why for the sake of our children we need a registry. We need to do everything within our power as parliamentarians to protect our children from repeat sex offenders.

I will read to the House a copy of a letter that was addressed to the solicitor general, copied and sent to me. Before I read it I would like to assure the House that I obtained the permission of the author, Jim Stephenson, the father of Christopher Stephenson, the Christopher in Ontario's Christopher's law, to read the letter. He said:

Anna and I both thank you for taking the time to meet with us earlier this week. As you know, our purpose in speaking with you was to explain why CPIC is incapable of providing the enforceable protection of a specific sex offender registry and why national action is essential. I regret that we were unsuccessful in that effort and you continue to take advice from your officials that legislated compliance is neither necessary nor permissible. They are wrong Minister; and I only hope that no child dies before you decide to listen to people other than those whose preoccupation is defending the status quo.

During the meeting, D/Sgt. Muise from Ontario's Office for Victims of Crime raised the additional issue of the difficulty Ontario was experiencing in trying to arrange the seemingly simple task of linking with the Federal Offender Management System. I was encouraged to note your surprise at this and your direction to--

In the letter to the solicitor general Mr. Stephenson names the official. I will just call him the official.

Mr. Stephenson went on to say:

-- [the official] of your Ministry to resolve this problem.

Following our meeting, my wife and I, together with D/Sgt. Muise further discussed the matter of a national sex offender registry with your official. We were sufficiently shocked at his conduct and remarks, in your absence, that I felt you should be apprised of them as they reflect extremely poorly on you as the Minister. Despite your previous public statement that “governments must continue to give victims more of a voice in the criminal justice system”, our own expressed desire to be included in the determination of appropriate registry format, and your acknowledgment that we would continue to work together, [your official] informed us that our involvement with the Working Group would not be possible as our presence would be “disruptive”. He further stated that the group of officials operated, to use his words, “like an old boys' club” and people like us would not be welcome.

Please be assured that our only interest in continuing these discussions is to prevent other Canadians from having to undergo the nightmare that befell our family when federal correctional officials released and then failed to supervise the repeat child rapist that abducted and murdered our son. Mr. Minister, unlike [your official] and his “colleagues”, my wife and I belong to a club of a very different sort where membership is unwilling and comes at a price that no one should have to bear. If this is the attitude of federal officials, it is small wonder that Canada lacks commitment to a National Sex Offender Registry and that public confidence in the justice system is continually questioned.

Finally Minister, I have learned that [your official's] “club” has scheduled a one-day meeting next week in the resort community of Banff, Alberta; a choice of locales I suggest speaks volumes about their priorities. I am certain that I could arrange the use of OPP facilities in Orillia where the Ontario Sex Offender Registry is housed--

What more can I say? Where is the commitment of the government? Where are its priorities? Certainly Canada is begging and calling out for a national sex offender registry. When will the solicitor general listen?

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act--Chapter No. 40.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 32.

Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 33.

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--Chapter No. 28.

Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 29.

Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism--Chapter No. 41.

Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act--Chapter No. 35.

Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect--Chapter No. 34.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act--Chapter No. 38.

Bill C-45, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002--Chapter No. 39.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs)--Chapter No. 37.

Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate)--Chapter No. 36.

Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements , conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 30.

Bill S-33, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act--Chapter No. 31.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. House leader of the PC/DR coalition concerning Vote 36a under Foreign Affairs and International Trade in the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2001-02.

The hon. House leader drew to the attention of the House that Vote 36a provides for the transfer of $2 million to the Export Development Corporation from the government. The purpose of the transfer is to compensate the corporation for the liability transferred to it by the government with respect to contributions made by corporation employees to the public service death benefit account.

The hon. PC/DR House leader pointed out that this liability will be transferred only with the passage into law of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

While that bill has been passed by the House, it is still being considered in the other place.

On that basis, he indicated that the request for funds in Vote 36a was without legal authority and requested that it be struck from the supplementary estimates and removed from the appropriation bill based on those estimates.

The principle that legislative authority must be in place before funds could be appropriated is clearly recognized. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 735, provides the following citation from the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome.

This was on March 22, 1977, and I quote:

—it is my view that the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item, in my opinion, ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader later informed the House that such statutory authority does exist and can be found in the Public Service Superannuation Act. He explained that the Export Development Corporation--and it is useful to note that the existing name is what appears in the appropriation bill--incurred a one-time liability when it withdrew from the Public Service Superannuation Act in April 2000, and that is the situation that Vote 36a addresses.

In the short time available, I have examined the text of Bill C-31 and the supplementary estimates and I have concluded that in light of the explanations offered by the parliamentary secretary the vote is in order and can proceed.

I am therefore ruling that the amount of $2 million in Vote 36a under Foreign Affairs and International Trade in the supplementary estimates is in order, as is the corresponding amount in the appropriation bill.

I thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his vigilance in raising the matter.

The house resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough raised a point of order with respect to the appropriations bill provision for foreign affairs vote 36a of $2 million for payment to compensate for transferred liabilities to the Export Development Corporation in respect of its employees who have contributed to the public service death benefit account. The member suggested that there is no statutory basis for this transfer.

I want to point out that the current name for the corporation is that which is specified in the appropriations bill.

I would like to note also that EDC withdrew from the Public Service Superannuation Act in April 2000. It thus incurred a one time liability at that time. This payment simply covers EDC's liability for that purpose. Authority is provided under the Public Service Superannuation Act for this. This would have been required with or without Bill C-31, the EDC Act and in fact, has nothing to do with that bill.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the content of the appropriations bill that would enact the contents of Supplementary Estimates (A)

I draw the attention of the House to Vote 36a under Foreign Affairs and International Trade in the amount of $2 million. The explanation in the estimates is: “Payments to compensate for the transferred liabilities to the corporation from the government in respect of export development employees who have contributed to the public service death benefits account”.

At the moment there is no statutory basis for this transfer. The transfer would be authorized by what now exists as Bill C-31, which passed the House on October 30. Alas, Bill C-31 has not yet completed its metamorphosis from a bill into the full majesty of statute.

The bill was sent to the Senate, but it would appear the Senate has not yet passed the bill. It would be inappropriate for the House to include vote 36a in the appropriations bill since at the moment there is no other legislative authority to transfer the funds to the EDC. Nor can the House assume that Bill C-31 will be passed by both houses in the form in which it was passed by the House of Commons. Presumably there is still an opportunity for amendments to occur in the other place.

You will be more familiar than most, Mr. Speaker, with the statement of Speaker Jerome on March 22, 1977, when he stated that a supply item ought not be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.

The House has already indicated through its passage of Bill C-31 that the transfer is in its view the proper subject of legislation, but the draft legislation has not yet been passed by both houses of Parliament. I therefore reluctantly invite the Speaker to strike this item from the appropriations bill.

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca suggested in his speech that government backbenchers were afraid to utter constructive criticisms of their own government programs. Not so. Many, many backbench MPs have constructive suggestions for the government. The member from Esquimalt when I challenged him on that suggested that I, who is well known for making constructive criticisms of government programs, was relegated to this corner of the House as some sort of punishment.

Well, I wish to reassure all members of the House of Commons that I am over in this corner of the House of Commons in order to give me more speaking room, in order to speak to the government members, to speak to the opposition members and to speak to even the Conservative members in the corner here. I consider my place in the House of Commons, the location of my seat, an honour. Now I will proceed to criticize a government program.

I really actually appreciate the opportunity this opposition motion does afford those in the House who monitor various government programs and have reservations about them. The program that most disturbs me and will be the main focus of my remarks is the non-insured health benefits program run by Health Canada for Canada's aboriginals, all those covered by the Indian Act.

This is a program that now costs the government treasury $578 million a year. It is a program that is not mandated in legislation whatsoever. It comes out of the blue. It was inherited from the previous Conservative government and it was designed to provide Canada's aboriginal citizens with free drugs and free vision care equipment like sunglasses and eyeglasses. It was designed to give free transportation to aboriginals.

The program was introduced by the former Conservative government under Brian Mulroney. At about the same time, a couple of years after that same government brought in a bill called Bill C-31, which extended Indian status extensively. It extended it mainly to women who had married non-Indians and had moved off the reserve. Consequently over the last 15 years there has been a tremendous expansion of people who qualify as aboriginals for the various programs that exist for aboriginals. This applies to the non-insured health benefits program, so what we have is a program that began costing the government a couple of hundred million, has risen exponentially and now costs $578 million a year.

The difficulty is it is a program that is based exclusively on race. It is not based on the economic disadvantage of individuals. It is not based on whether they are on reserve or off reserve. It is not based on income. One of the problems is that an untold amount of money in that program is going to people who have their Indian cards who are taking advantage of the program and have no need to take advantage of the program.

I know of at least one instance where the individual is earning about $300,000 a year and yet he qualifies for the program. That is a very extreme example, but in Canada's urban centres there are literally tens of thousands of individuals who qualify for the free drugs which run into seven million prescriptions a year. There are stories where they go out and their kids can get free sunglasses and so on and so forth.

This is a classic case where parliament needs to intervene and draw parameters around this program focusing on people who are in need rather than simply on race. I would suggest that the savings could be a couple of hundred million dollars.

We have heard a lot from the other side on how in this time of recession we should be doing everything we can to cut spending and lower taxes, but I submit that we have not had a lot of constructive suggestions. I would suggest that if the government were to come into the non-insured health benefits program, put it under legislation finally and make it income relevant as it should be directed to those in need, there would be a tremendous saving and I think there would be a tremendous benefit to the people involved as well.

The other program that I am very critical of that I wish the finance minister would pay attention to is in the context of Canada's national debt. The member for Elk Island spoke considerably on this. My disappointment is that it is certainly true we have reduced the debt by $36 billion, but looking at the public accounts and looking at the report of the auditor general we could have reduced that debt by another $7 billion. We can still reduce it by $3 billion or $4 billion just like that. The way is to take the money back from the foundations, the nine foundations that were set up with government funds to undertake various programs.

For instance, there is about $3 billion locked up in the Canada foundation for innovation. I have no problem with the idea behind this foundation, which is to try to improve Canada's technological competitiveness, but it is an evasion of public responsibility when taxpayer dollars are given to an arm's length organization that then invests it. Rather than having a foundation invest taxpayer dollars, it should have been reduced from the debt because what you have, Mr. Speaker, is $7 billion in various investments in these arm's length foundations that would actually, if the money had been held back until needed, have reduced the debt by some $7 billion.

I think the finance department and the finance minister should examine the whole philosophy about setting up things like the millennium scholarship fund which is another one of these foundations that accounts for $2.4 billion. The millennium scholarship fund is an excellent program. I think it is excellent but it should be a charge as you go, not as a charge to the future. The final difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is of course if you put the money out to foundations and they invest it of course they become susceptible to what happens in the markets.

I have the annual report before me of the Canada foundation for innovation, but I regret I cannot get enough information from it to determine whether the billion or so dollars that it invested in various market instruments had gained or lost money. That is precisely the point: if it had been a debt reduction it would have meant that the Government of Canada would not be borrowing.

You see what happens, Mr. Speaker. By giving it to an arm's length foundation, $7 billion to a foundation, it means the government has to continue to borrow. I do not think this is acceptable, but I think $7 billion is a worthy saving.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the opposition for giving me the opportunity to suggest to the government these two areas that I think it could address. I know it is too late for the budget remarks that are coming up very shortly, but to me it is parliament that is responsible for spending taxpayer money. It is parliament that should be accountable. I deplore situations where there is a $578 million program that is not legislated by parliament that is dispensing that amount of money. I deplore also where we offload our responsibilities to arm's length organizations when we should keep the money for our own purposes to keep the debt down and pay for these programs as we go.

Code of Canadian Citizenship

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-417, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fundy--Royal for supporting the private member's bill, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

The PC/DR coalition bill is about Canadian citizenship. It speaks to and unites all Canadians, Canadians by birth and Canadians by choice. The bill would ensure there is only one class of citizenship in Canada, unlike the last Liberal bill, Bill C-31, which promoted two classes of citizenship.

It is time for Canada to have a new citizenship bill, an act for all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Export Development Act

[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.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

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?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

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.

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.

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.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

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.

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.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

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.

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.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

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.

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.

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.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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.

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.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

--, which directive may

(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.

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.

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.

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.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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--

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Committees of the House

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to present its ninth report.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, your committee has considered Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and agreed on Thursday, October 25 to report it without amendment. A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings for meetings numbers 33, 35 and 36 is tabled.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the deputy opposition House leader for her question.

I will report to the House that this afternoon we will complete third reading of Bill C-32, assuming we can complete this legislation, which is the Costa Rica trade bill. A little later today there will also be a royal assent on Bill S-23, which is important for national security.

On Friday we will debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, the transport tribunal bill.

Monday shall be an allotted day.

On Tuesday we will debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, the export development bill. This will be followed by a motion respecting the name of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On Wednesday we will debate second reading of the Air Canada bill that was introduced earlier this day.

On Thursday we hope to deal with report stage of Bill C-10, respecting marine parks.

Export Development Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-31.

National Security

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it was this government that recognized the need to update our immigration laws. It has been 25 years since we have had a new law. It was that party that initially delayed Bill C-31 and voted against Bill C-11.

Many of the provisions the member has suggested are actually included in Bill C-11, which is now before the Senate. We are hoping to see royal assent this fall. We are ready to go, virtually ready to go with the regulations which have already been before committee. I look forward to his co-operation on implementation.

Export Development Act

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Calgary East, my neighbouring constituency, for his remarks. His remarks reflect expert knowledge of issues related to foreign trade, export development and international development. They have helped me to have a better understanding of the issue. The hon. member spends a lot of time overseas examining Canadian aid projects and trade with foreign countries, and it is well reflected in his remarks.

Bill C-31, as we know, seeks to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It provides for delegation of powers to committees established by the board of EDC. It also provides for the establishment of a procedure for environmental assessment of projects supported by the crown corporation.

My colleagues in the official opposition and I have for a long time had fundamental concerns about the operation of Export Development Corporation. We start from the first premise that the private sector is a more efficient means of allocating scarce capital than government or government agencies. We agree with the need for financing and insurance to facilitate Canadian trade abroad. Foreign trade is an essential aspect of our economy and it is absolutely essential to our economic growth.

Canada is a net exporting country. We have a current account surplus of something in the neighbourhood of $27 billion a year. We export more goods and services than we import, to the tune of $27 billion.

There is an urgent need for Canada to continue its growth in exports. We have much to offer the rest of the world, not just in terms of manufactured goods produced in Canada but in terms of services and hard commodities which help feed millions of people around the world and provide much needed equipment to raise living standards in underdeveloped countries and economies.

For all these reasons it is necessary to focus on assisting Canadian companies which trade abroad. Sometimes this can be difficult. Sometimes it involves incurring political hazard. Sometimes there is a need for special kinds of insurance for our export oriented companies. Sometimes there is a need for financing to enable companies abroad to buy Canadian goods and services.

My colleagues and I believe most of these functions could be carried out more efficiently by the private sector. Maintaining a government run and taxpayer owned corporation such as EDC which provides insurance, financing and services of this nature takes away opportunities from Canadian capital markets and insurance companies.

These companies could provide the same services on a commercial basis without exposing Canadian taxpayers to risk. This would enlarge opportunities for private Canadian companies as opposed to government run crown corporations.

Inevitably crown corporations present opportunities for abuse and unaccountability. Nowhere is that more clear than with the board of Export Development Corporation. It is used frequently by the executive council, the government, the cabinet and the Prime Minister as a parking place for Liberal patronage appointees.

My colleague from Calgary East and other colleagues have mentioned the recent appointment of Bernie Boudreau. He lost a provincial election in Nova Scotia, was appointed to the cabinet through the Senate and lost a federal election. His reward for having lost two elections was to get appointed to the board of EDC. This was his principal qualification.

The same man would not have been appointed to the board of a private insurance company, private venture capital company or bank which provides the same services in the private sector. The criterion for people who govern such corporations is not the ability to lose elections for the right party. It is the demonstrable ability to manage the bottom line and create profits and dividends for shareholders. That is the sort of governance we need for the services now provided by Export Development Corporation.

I saw my friend, the hon. government House leader, a moment ago and it brought to mind the Liberal standards on patronage. They were very high indeed between 1984 and 1993. When I was a young Liberal I used to receive mailings from the current hon. government House leader. Every year between 1984 and 1993 he put out something called the black book on Tory patronage. It was an exhaustive litany of all the horrendous patronage appointments made by the then Tory government.

There was indeed an orgy of patronage during those years but it was the current government House leader who raised his voice in great indignation about it. He said if the Liberal Party ever formed a government again it would never engage in patronage, the kind of patronage we now see day after day in appointments to boards like that of EDC.

I ask my colleagues opposite, when they reflect on government control of organizations like EDC, to consider that they should perhaps be consistent with what they have said. Perhaps they should walk the talk about patronage that they offered to Canadians between 1984 and 1993. Perhaps they should consider our non-partisan constructive criticism that many of the functions of EDC could be spun off more effectively into the private sector.

As my colleague from Calgary East has said, there are two basic functions at EDC. First, there are functions managed within the corporate account such as export financing, insurance and guarantees. These are financed primarily by borrowing on domestic and international capital markets.

Second, there is the Canada account which provides government the means and authority to support export transactions that do not meet EDC's normal criteria for prudent risk management. That is another way of saying companies which finance agreements that would not normally meet commercial criteria can get money from the Canada account. These sometimes include large corporations that receive hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers.

Most of the services provided by EDC such as short and medium term export insurance and financing should be turned over to the private sector. The rest of EDC could become a division of DFAIT.

My colleague from Calgary East has suggested somehow linking it with certain functions carried out by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency. Those functions could then be accountable to parliament directly rather than through the indirect relationship of a crown corporation.

The new export division could provide occasional loan guarantees and other services beyond the scope of private companies such as long term insurance, political risk insurance and small premium insurance. It could support projects which are not commercially viable but are deemed to be in the national interest.

I accept that from time to time there are projects that need non-commercial financing and that Canada needs, for strategic reasons of national interest and not just economic reasons, to be present in the economies of countries abroad.

For that reason we in the Canadian Alliance would support, as a function of our international aid portfolio, financing of that nature. However we could do so with greater parliamentary accountability while allowing the more commercial aspects of EDC to operate in the private sector where they belong.

Until we finally see changes of this nature, changes which would increase accountability, reduce taxpayer risk and allow functions that could be in the private sector to go into the private sector, my colleagues in the official opposition and I cannot and will not support the changes to the Export Development Act because they do not deal with the fundamental problems of this crown corporation.

We are moving into a time of great fiscal and economic uncertainty. The Bank of Nova Scotia reported last Friday that the government would face a deficit of $5 billion in fiscal year 2002-03.

We are almost undoubtedly in the midst of a recession. The finance minister will accuse me and anyone who uses that word of alarmism, but it is an unavoidable fact. We had negative economic growth in the first two months of the third quarter of this year. There is almost no doubt that given the events of September 11 and its economic consequences we will see negative growth at the end of the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth quarter.

Two successive quarters of negative growth constitute a recession. Unfortunately it is not only plausible but likely that we will find ourselves in that position. That will have a negative effect on the fiscal position of the government. It means revenues will go down and so-called automatic stabilizers and social expenditures will go up.

All this puts us close to a deficit position mainly because the government is increasing its program expenditures far beyond the level of growth in the economy, inflation or population.

Why do I say this? I say it because it is time once again for parliament and the government to make hard choices. As the finance minister said three years ago, we can never again allow ourselves to go into deficit come hell or high water. I asked him last Friday if he would again make that commitment. He pointedly failed to do so.

There is a huge imperative to invest more resources into areas of national security such as the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, intelligence services such as CSIS, customs and border control, the coast guard and restoration of the ports police. These demands will undoubtedly cost several billions of dollars. Together with the oncoming recession and the enormous spending pressures the government has imposed on taxpayers through various discretionary programs, they will add up to a time in which we must be single minded and make difficult decisions.

That will mean liquidating assets such as some crown corporations. It will mean privatizing functions now performed by government agencies and crown corporations which could be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. These are some of the decisions we must make if we are to avoid a deficit. Our argument for the partial privatization of the functions of EDC is more important now than ever because we are once again staring a deficit in the face.

I recommend we go back to the drawing board on EDC, look at how its functions could be operated in the private sector, save the taxpayers a potential risk of hundreds of millions of dollars and prepare ourselves for some of the difficult choices which lie ahead in the near future.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-31 regarding the Export Development Corporation.

I asked my assistant to go to the website to find out exactly what the mandate of the organization is and I will quote the very first sentence: “EDC is a Canadian financial institution devoted exclusively to providing trade finance services to support Canadian exporters and investors in some 200 markets, 130 of which are in developing markets”. I believe the website is relatively current. It goes on to say that last year, Canadian business concluded $45.4 billion in export and domestic sales and investments in markets using EDC trade financing services. It claims right up front that it is not only involved in exports but also has domestic sales and investments in the marketplace.

The EDC also says that 90% of its customers are smaller customers, but it does not indicate the magnitude of the business conducted with these different corporations. While 90% of its customers are presumably smaller companies, in terms of the number of them, we have no indication or any way of finding out exactly who the other 10% are. It could well be, and I suspect it is the case, that the 10% that are not smaller companies are large corporations that benefit immensely from the majority of the financial activity of the corporation.

The EDC goes on to say that it also has responsibility for social corporate activity. It logs its code of conduct and business ethics. It lists all of the things it is high on and we should commend it for that. It is a global business and says that it is therefore a global citizen and works within a global environmental context.

I find it quite incredible because the Government of Canada has expressed its concern for global environmental issues. We are no longer living in a world where what we do with our air, water and soil is limited only to ourselves because of the fact that our world has become a very small community. I commend these words, but when we look into the depths of the legislation that is before us and what is proposed therein, we find that it is somewhat inadequate in the sense that Canada's rigid environmental laws do not apply.

I will digress for a second. I think of Canada signing the Kyoto accord. One of the questions that has been asked of me, and which I actually have asked myself, is exactly how the environment is enhanced by shipping Canadian money to other countries that for whatever reason do not have as much pollution as our country.

For example, we are a northern country. We have heating demands which are just not present in Africa. A person would have a hard time making a living selling furnaces in Africa because they are not needed. No fuel is burned and hence not as much pollution is produced.

In order to solve the environmental problems of the world, should we ship our money to Africa? How is the environment enhanced by that? Would it not be better to keep the money at home in Canada and use it for research and other activities in order to clean up our environment and the way in which we produce our own energy needs?

The Export Development Corporation is not required to adhere to Canada's environmental laws. It has its own law. I can see its argument. It says that it is one that is internationally agreed to and in order to allow it to play on a level playing field, that is the rule it needs to apply.

From time to time EDC becomes involved in financing projects which would not fly in Canada because of Canadian environmental laws. That to me is an anachronism. We are willing to send money out of the country which has nothing to do with helping the environment yet, through the Export Development Corporation, we may be financing projects which do not meet even our own requirements. It is a contradictory use of Canadian taxpayers' money.

There is also something called the Canada account. My colleague from Kelowna mentioned it. The Canada account is used to support export transactions which are determined by the Minister for International Trade to be in Canada's national interest. According to its website, this is usually due to a combination of risks and it mentions what those are. Basically the executive summary of it is it would become involved if ordinary banks would not touch the matter.

Canada account transactions are negotiated, executed and administered by the EDC, just like the corporate account transactions are, but the risks under the Canada account are assumed by the Government of Canada.

We see a direct involvement of the Minister for International Trade who can say “This is a project which we will approve”. Unfortunately, there is no check and balance in the legislation to prevent the minister from using it for the purposes of propping up businesses of the minister's choice rather than perhaps what is really good for the country as a whole.

To whom is EDC accountable? It says that it operates at arm's length from government. However, the way the corporation is set up, the Government of Canada, i.e., the taxpayers of Canada, is the only shareholder of the corporation. I was elected to speak for taxpayers in Canada. That was my primary theme. Canadian taxpayers have “invested” into EDC in excess of $1 billion, yet the corporation claims that it operates at arm's length from the government and does not cost the taxpayers anything. I beg to differ.

As a matter of fact, if someone were to give me $1 billion and said that I would have to pay it back, eventually I would give back the $1 billion but boy, would I live a happy life in the intervening years. It is a little thing called interest. One billion dollars could easily produce $100 million per year in income. That would be adequate for a good weekend, would it not? We are talking a lot of money here and it is money that is lost to Canadians by virtue of the fact that it is tied up in the Export Development Corporation.

Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not say that the corporation does not cost the taxpayers anything. It obviously does since we have this huge amount of money that has been invested in it. It is taxpayers' money.

I will not deny the fact that many businesses benefit from the work of the Export Development Corporation. It enables them to promote their own business and to export to countries around the world. In that sense those taxpayers at least get something back. It obviously produces some employment and that is also good.

I would like to see legislation which would greatly enhance the accountability to the Canadian taxpayers. I am appalled when I read the details that although the auditor general has access to the accounts and makes reports and the five year special report, those audits are not readily available, even through access to information.

I regret that my time for debate is up. I hope some members will have questions for me so that we can enter into debate.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elk Island. One would think that after the member for Parkdale--High Park finished with her catalogue of good things the EDC had done over the past years that there was absolutely nothing in the world the EDC could not do to promote business. I wonder what happened to all of our financial institutions and our private enterprises that operate without EDC support.

I want to put on the record a balanced position which clearly indicates there is something else besides EDC that might work. One would think that according to the government the only corporations which really know what to do are crown corporations. That is far from the truth. There are a lot of other corporations that are doing very well. I suspect that is one of the reasons CN, which was a crown corporation, is now a private corporation.

I will speak to a number of amendments contained in Bill C-31: the environmental provision, the increase of the contingent liability ceiling from $15 billion to $32.5 billion, the empowering of the board to make contributions to pension plans, making it an offence for businesses to refer in their advertisement to EDC involvement in their enterprises, the appointment of committees and the power of the board to delegate its powers to them.

I will read into the record the clause pertaining to the environmental provisions. I am sure many people who are watching do not know exactly what is being talked about. Clause 10.1 states:

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;

Subclause 10.1 (2) states:

The Board shall issue a directive respecting the determination referred to in subsection (1), which directive may

(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”;

Is that not interesting? The board has the right to decide whether there will be adverse environmental effects. The next section defines an adverse environmental effect.

The bill does not in any way refer to Canada's environmental act. It is excluded specifically. Those projects are approved under the Canada account which the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade need to approve. They are specifically exempted and do not apply or come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Clause 12 which amends section 24.1 states:

(1) Subsection 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply where the Minister or the Minister of Finance exercises a power or performs a duty or function under this Act or any regulation made under it, or exercises a power of authorization or approval with respect to the Corporation under any other Act of Parliament or any other regulation made under it.

We now need to look at the very wide reaching powers of the EDC. The corporation may acquire and dispose of any interest in any entity by any means; enter into any arrangement that has the effect of providing to any person any insurance, reinsurance, indemnity or guarantee; enter into any arrangement that has the effect of extending credit to any person or providing an undertaking to pay money to any person; take any security interest in any property; prepare, compile, publish and distribute information; provide consulting services; procure the incorporation, dissolution or amalgamation of subsidiaries; make any investment and enter into any transaction necessary or desirable for the financial management of the corporation; and there are others.

The powers are overwhelming. The auditor could be the president of the EDC and do anything he would want to do. It is like telling my friends to form a corporation, make sure to do some exporting and make sure that they get paid by the person who is buying the product they are exporting. That is what is possible here.

We have to recognize that these people will be responsible, but the law is an open book and allows them pretty well to go anywhere they want to go. That is the sort of thing that makes it possible for a patronage appointment, for example, to reflect specifically what it is the Prime Minister wants done in another country, another corporation, or whatever the case may be.

In addition, the board that runs the corporation may now appoint committees which can have any of these powers delegated to them. This is really interesting. That is the kind of bill we have before us. If it were not for the trust, faith and common sense of some of people, we would have the possibility and potential of making something corrupt.

I am happy that we as Canadians do not live like that. We trust one another. We have a sense of morality and a sense of ethics. That is what makes this kind of thing work. It is not because the legislation is so good. It is because the people are so decent.

This is why I am such a strong proponent of private enterprise in the first instance. These people are now directly responsible for their own money in their own way. They can do the things that have to be done to benefit them and get the finest results they can get.

The answer lies not in forming crown corporations and extending their powers and privileges but rather in creating an environment so that private enterprise can win and can apply these kinds of things.

I am sorry the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park is not in the House right now because I would like to ask her if it is really possible--

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Etobicoke--Lakeshore who are very much involved and interested in businesses, et cetera, where the Export Development Act would have some reference, I am pleased to join in the debate today.

As Canadians we all understand the importance of a healthy environment, not just within our bodies but for everyone on this planet.

This past spring, I hosted a roundtable on the environment, where many of my constituents expressed concern over the state of the air we breath, the pollution of our lakes and rivers and global warming. For them they want the federal government to ensure that Canadian corporations, when carrying out their activities overseas, that they act responsibly toward the environment as they would if they were here in Canada.

Bill C-31 answers that concern. The bill would complement Canada's international and domestic obligations on the environment front. The bill would allow those values that we share as Canadians and initiatives that we implement on the environment to be implemented in an international context.

Canada's leadership role in the Kyoto protocol is sending a strong signal to our international partners that the federal government is committed to protecting and preserving the environment.

We are also helping developing countries to reduce toxic by-products that are industrial and agricultural based by encouraging them to adopt best practices to ensure environmental sustainability. As Canadians we have a responsibility to do this.

My constituents understand that toxics know no border and that we must take measures to respond to environmental challenges such as climate change and air pollution.

My constituents also understand that all sectors in society, government, civil society and the private sector, must share in the responsibility for a healthy and safe environment.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I have had the privilege of hearing from numerous witnesses who came before the committee. They spoke about the operations of the EDC. We heard from the president, from labour, civil society, business owners and exporters.

During the hearings the message was loud and clear: consideration must be given to the environment when EDC finances projects; and, that a formal environmental review process must be established.

Let me take this opportunity to remind the House that EDC was established in 1944 with a mandate to support and develop Canada's export trade. In the year 2000, it supported an estimated $45 billion in export and foreign investments.

The scope of credit agencies financing activities, particularly in the developing world, has prompted a call for sound environmental practices, recognizing the importance of fostering trade competitiveness that is consistent with environmental conservation.

From the early 1990s, as part of its risk management process, the corporation reviewed projects for their environmental impact.

Two years ago, EDC introduced its environmental review framework to formalize and strengthen its environmental procedures. The framework was developed at a time when few export credit agencies were seeking to manage environmental risks.

I am very pleased that the EDC has followed through on the suggestions and recommendations, not only of the foreign affairs committee but also on the Gowling report studied by the foreign affairs and international trade committee with the recommendations for a legislative framework and a substantive approach following that of environmental practices in other areas, including the World Bank.

The federal government is committed to ensuring that environmental standards are observed and defends the discussion today on the bill, balancing the need for EDC to be environmentally as well as socially responsible with the need to promote Canada's participation in a competitive and international market.

Bill C-31 makes the EDC's board of directors--and we heard mention of the board of directors earlier-including two deputy ministers of the federal government responsible for the environmental review policy. This is a binding obligation.

In addition the auditor general would have an ongoing monitoring and reporting role on behalf of parliament and the Canadian public. The EDC was among the first export credit agency to introduce such a review framework, putting Canada and the EDC at the forefront of current practices in the environmental review of export projects.

The framework has to two guiding principles: first, as the witnesses we heard from stressed, 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; and, second, that 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 by the anticipated positive effects of such projects.

In other words, if the end result of a project is positive but there is a negative way in which to get to the end result, under its guiding principle the EDC can say no.

This environmental review framework is a reflection of ongoing multilateral discussions at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. In that forum an export credits group is working to develop internationally acceptable standards for the environmental review practices of the export credit agencies of all OECD member countries.

There is a growing number of countries with formal environmental review policies including all the G-7 nations and the majority of OECD nations. Among the best are those of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. My constituents know that EDC's environmental review framework is regarded as being at the forefront of international initiatives in this regard.

Earlier my colleague mentioned the report of the auditor general. He stated that this framework contained all the elements suitably designed to aid this process. It shows the following: how the corporation would identify environmental risks, the information it would need to assess them, the circumstances under which it would decline to support a project or to make its support conditional, and the process for monitoring and reporting to ensure that the risks are appropriately managed.

Canada is standing head to head with other nations. These practices are in wide use. Bill C-31 would strengthen our domestic values and international agreements relating to the environment. Canadians expect that corporations doing business outside our shores such as EDC will reflect our values and the environment.

I call on all my colleagues to support Bill C-31 which would work to ensure the concerns of Canadians will be echoed in both the domestic and international spheres.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today. I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the legislation, as will be no surprise to my colleagues on the other side.

I could not help but listen to my hon. colleagues in the PC/DR who talked about missed opportunities. It is great to be speaking to the issue today. I did not miss an opportunity to do so in the last session. In the last session I was chair of the subcommittee on international trade, trade disputes and investments. I was also an associate member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade which examined the Gowling report.

While I was not mandated to appear at those committees I thought it was important to do so. It is important for small businesses in my riding that I understand and appreciate what EDC does and the kind of value it adds.

I had an opportunity to lead two trade missions to the Baltic states during the last session of parliament. At that time if there was one criticism by small businesses it was that they wanted more involvement by the Export Development Corporation.

I support the bill because it means Canada's Export Development Corporation would continue to be able to meet the financing needs of our exporters but in a way that reflects Canadian values for corporate social responsibility.

Over the years Export Development Corporation or EDC has become a valued part of our country's success as an exporting nation. Last year EDC facilitated $45 billion in international business by Canadian companies. The corporation served the needs of 5,700 clients, well over 80% of whom were small and medium size enterprises. As a founding member of the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada I know the value of small and medium size businesses as well as businesses run and owned by women.

In total last year EDC carried out some 70,000 short term insurance transactions. These services are vital to our nation's export success. We must ensure EDC can continue to provide them. At the same time EDC's operating policies and actions must reflect the values Canadians believe in, and they must do so both at home and abroad.

EDC does business in more than 200 markets around the world. One hundred and thirty of these are in developing countries. We need to make sure Canadian values regarding issues like sustainable development and human rights are part of the decision making process for EDC supported projects in other countries. We also need to make sure the decision making process is transparent and accountable so that Canadians know this is the case.

These are the reasons Bill C-31 is important for us as legislators. Along with other policy guidance from the government, the amendments to the Export Development Act contained in the bill would help us reach two overarching policy objectives: first, that the act support Canada's exporters and the jobs and wealth they create; and, second, that it recognize that Canadian values of corporate social responsibility must be included in EDC's decision making process.

There is no shortage of examples to show that EDC is vital to our country's export success. As noted, last year the corporation provided financial support of one kind or another to 5,700 Canadian companies. Again, most of these were small or medium size enterprises.

These are the kinds of companies members on every side of the House have in their ridings. They are companies like Cameron Seafoods Ltd. of Nova Scotia, a family run business which is developing new markets abroad for its specialty seafood products. EDC has provided it with financial support such as credit guarantees that have facilitated new sales to buyers in other countries. When EDC came on board in 1998 the company's sales increased from $3 million to $5 million in one year. That is quite an increase.

Another example is Amec Earth and Environmental Ltd. of Calgary, a firm that provides geotechnical and environmental engineering services. EDC has worked with the company for several years and provided it with financial support to reduce the risk of doing business internationally. Amec now employs 1,600 people and is doing business in 30 countries.

Another good example is Klik Automation of Montreal. This small, high technology firm is part of the new imaging software community that has grown up in the Montreal region. When Klik was looking to develop a new export market last year, the company turned to EDC for insurance to guarantee payment by a new overseas customer. That deal resulted in 19 new jobs in Montreal.

There are stories like this all across Canada. Each one means increased exports for Canada and good jobs for Canadians. The government is working hard to make sure that we see more of these success stories. Bill C-31 is a key element of this work. It is not a long bill. In fact it can be read quite quickly, and I would encourage members who have not read it to do so. It is a bill that should be read and understood within the broader context of change for EDC, both domestically and internationally.

Bill C-31 is really the concluding step in a process review that started over three years ago when the government commissioned a consultant to carry out a legislative review and write a report. That was the so-called Gowlings report.

The process continued with the parliamentary committee hearings and reports to government by the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Senate committee on banking.

In addition, the auditor general has been involved and has made useful recommendations, especially on EDC's environmental review framework. In June of this year, the Minister for International Trade provided guidance on updating EDC's mandate in a number of key areas, including environmental review, human rights and broadening the base of participation of the private sector in financing Canadian exports.

Throughout the review, interested stakeholders have also been involved in the process, another opportunity, I would say, to participate. Although the review of the Export Development Act has not been a matter of broad public concern, a number of organizations and committed stakeholder groups, representing both business and public interest groups with specific interest in EDC, have been actively involved in the process.

Both the Minister for International Trade and EDC have found this involvement helpful. I would remind my colleagues on the other side that this is simply part of what the Liberal government is all about. In fact the Speech from the Throne talks about the importance of consultation. This is evidence of not just speaking about it but actually doing something about it.

EDC is perhaps best known for its success as an export financing institution but the corporation has also shown that it is socially responsible. Note, for example, that it was the EDC that initiated the environmental review framework and it is putting in place a new disclosure policy to improve accountability. These are significant developments.

We all want greater attention to be given to environmental and human rights issues and we all want a disclosure policy that will reassure Canadians that EDC's decision making process is transparent and accountable.

It is equally important that we have policies and operating directives that are realistic as well as workable. That is why public consultations are so important and the input of those stakeholder groups in Canadian society who are most affected by EDC is also so helpful to the government.

EDC has recently gone through a public consultation process on its disclosure policy. Just this past September, the corporation was going through a similar consultation with stakeholders to follow up on advice from the auditor general and the Minister for International Trade on strengthening and improving its environmental review framework.

Representatives from both the business community and public interest groups have been a welcome part of these consultations. They are an important part of the process to develop the specific policies and operating procedures that will meet the government's policy objectives and that are realistic and workable in practice.

In the OECD, for example, we have led the discussion in this area. Our negotiators sense a growing consensus for action by the OECD to require the export credit agencies of member countries to conduct environmental reviews of projects proposed for financial support. Canada can be a model for this new approach. It is a balanced approach that best meets Canada's needs in changing the international environment.

The legislation is the right approach for Canada. It brings the force of law to EDC's environmental review framework and it will position us well to deal with emerging trends in the international community. It is a bill that all members should support.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important premises of a missed opportunity is that we lose the opportunity. It is gone. We have seen this during the tragic events which have touched all of us in the last few weeks. We must be leaders. We must be up front and ready to make changes as we need to. That is where the missed opportunities are in Bill C-31. Its critics, even those within the crown corporation, are calling for more accountability and transparency while its proponents say they need secrecy for business practices.

I remind these people that they are asking for large sums of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know. . We could change the legislation. We could find a balance which protects business interests but gives taxpayers the knowledge they need to ensure accountability. We could ensure that taxpayers get value for their dollars and that their dollars are spent wisely.

The government has once again missed a huge opportunity to effect positive changes to the legislation. That is why we in the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative caucus will be opposing it.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act. The bill would change a few things. It would change the name of the corporation. It would enable the board to delegate its powers and duties to committees it may establish other than the executive committee. It would require some environmental reviews and an environmental process for projects. Also apparently the auditor general would have the ability to audit the design and implementation of the directive established by the board, at least once every five years.

I will examine these issues in more detail. First, in regard to the name I do not think there is anything too serious there. Basically the modification would mean that the corporation would have the same acronym in both English and French. The new name would be Export Development Canada, which I do not think is too earth shattering.

Let us move on to something more substantive, and that is the Canada Account. The Export Development Corporation assists corporations across the country to secure opportunities and orders abroad. Generally those who apply for loan assistance through Export Development Canada need to meet certain financial tests to ensure that they have the ability to repay it, if it is a loan, et cetera.

However, the Canada Account is a political account. Sometimes those applying do not quite meet the test or there are other reasons. I understand the necessity for it because I do believe there is a purpose for it, however, all decisions on the Canada Account are based purely on politics. They are cabinet decisions and are not made by industry or financial experts or at arm's length. None of this is dealt with in the bill. That is something that I think the government should look at. I understand that it is seldom used, primarily for risky ventures. To give an example, the Candu nuclear reactors were under the Canada Account.

However the account has been receiving unfavourable attention in recent years. Two years ago the Canada Account was judged to be illegal by the World Trade Organization. Nonetheless the government says the account has been amended to satisfy the WTO concerns. It has been referred to as a secret slush fund.

The Export Development Corporation makes deals to the tune of $4.5 billion worth of exports each year. It is a significant amount of money. I suggest that we could remove political decision making from the Canada Account and bring back a more accountable process. Of course that is not dealt with in the bill.

Let us move on to the next area. One of the suggested government amendments 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 appointed by the Minister for International Trade and the other two, the chairman and president, are appointed by the Prime Minister. This appointed board currently formulates EDC policies and practices and I find that somewhat questionable. It is an unelected board, with all 15 appointments made either by the Prime Minister or the Minister for International Trade, and it now wants to delegate its powers and duties to more appointments, to its committees. The EDC board already has incredible power and influence and it now wants to delegate that down even further, so there are some questions that need to be answered.

Patrick Lavelle, the chairman of the EDC, called for more independence for crown corporations and agencies such as the EDC, stating that the objective of naming directors should be to “get the best people, no matter where they come from”. Mr. Lavelle suggested that EDC move toward privatization, noting that there is a culture of secrecy in government bureaucracies. He stated that there is “an inherent believability in federal Crowns that information is power and increasing its release will just generate unwarranted criticism”.

That puts it in a nutshell. This is the chairman of the EDC who is calling for this. Furthermore he is recommending that 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. What it comes down to on these appointments and committees is that the government is proposing legislation to have the board of the EDC, with its 15 appointees, able to appoint other committees, as opposed to actually bringing back more power to parliament. Right now it is very politicized. I think we could do a much better job.

Again, the EDC is a $45 billion a year operation and one of the big issues is the whole issue that seems to surround the EDC: its secrecy, its transparency, its accountability. If there were ever a time that the Export Development Corporation needed to be there it is right now in the current situation where the economy is fragile at best. If there were ever a time when we needed sound, solid management there for Canadian companies and when we needed to make sure that the EDC is not based on politics and that it continues to help the Canadian economy grow, it is now.

That brings me to my next area and that is accountability. There has to be more accountability in this crown corporation, something that is evidently lacking at present. The government agrees that the EDC should “publicly demonstrate its accountability by reflecting the full range of public policy concerns and its activities and should introduce appropriate transparency measures concerning its activities”.

One suggestion that the government has come up with is to propose that the auditor general audit the design and implementation of the directive established by the board, at least once every five years. I believe that accountability has to happen a lot more often than once every five years. Such audits have to happen annually or at the very least every two years. Given the deplorable misuse of taxpayers' money by HRDC, which is still fresh in Canadians' minds, five years is a heck of a long time between audits and things can go askew. I think audits need to happen a lot more often to ensure that we do not have a repeat of that type of activity.

Furthermore, the Export Development Corporation is not covered by the Access to Information Act. That is a huge bone of contention. In the past the corporation has been accused of keeping billions of dollars in loans secret in foreign countries. In its defence, and I understand this, the EDC says it is restricted by business confidentiality but that it encourages its sponsors to release information about its projects. I understand that.

Businesses do want certain aspects of things kept confidential, but in turn these businesses are asking for public money, public assistance. I think that is where we can draw the line. If a company has business practices about which it needs to be that secretive, then maybe it should be looking at other avenues. I think when a business is using taxpayers' money it has to be completely transparent.

A recent study for the federal government found that crown corporations, including the EDC, should be subject to the Access to Information Act, since access laws encourage organizations to be “demonstrably worthy of public trust”.

The study notes that the reasons for crown corporations such as the EDC being excluded from the law are unclear and that an agency should be subject to the law if the government appoints more than half the governing body. The government appoints them all in this case. We are getting the message.

Another big part of the legislation would be to have full environmental assessments on projects to make sure they meet certain standards. The Minister for International Trade insists that:

This Bill will allow Canada to position itself at the forefront of environmental review policy for export credit agencies around the world.

If we are committed to ensuring the environment is protected while carrying out projects in Canada, should the same not hold true when entering into transactions abroad? EDC has had to defend its environmental assessment framework as recently as April 2000 when it was accused of assisting in some of the world's most environmentally damaging projects. In any event, the government's bringing forward of an assessment review is a positive aspect of the legislation.

The real issue for me is accountability and transparency. In May of this year a report of the auditor general gave a failing grade to 24 of 26 projects backed by the Export Development Corporation. To add insult to injury, Export Development Corporation 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.

A spokesman for the EDC explained that three clients that objected to releasing details of the projects have “good legitimate reasons”. We will never know the details of projects that received failing grades. We will not know even basic information such as the type of product, the cost or which country was involved.

I will be recommending to members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative caucus that on balance we oppose Bill C-31 because it does not address the issues of accountability and transparency, issues which should be paramount and at the forefront.

We do see a need for Export Development Canada and its projects, even more so at a time like this. However the fact that it is excluded from access to information and is delegating its powers to committees as opposed to bringing them into parliament are real concerns.

The government missed an opportunity to address these important issues. Major concerns about the crown corporation have been out there for years, but the government has chosen merely to change the name and do some tinkering. I give the government credit on environmental assessment, but the fact that it missed the boat on these issues means the bill is not something we can support at this time.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-31. I would like to ask a few questions and to express, as the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois has, opposition to this bill for certain reasons.

It is a good opportunity for us to talk about the broad issues of international trade and human rights in the context of the bill. I want to put on record the concerns of the New Democratic Party with respect to Bill C-31 and to explain why we are opposed to it. We also have some recommendations on how to improve the legislation.

As my colleague from the Bloc who just spoke indicated, Bill C-31 has missed the mark. We have an opportunity before us today to address some very significant issues with respect to the environment and human rights from an international perspective, and an opportunity to convey and carry forward our sentiments and values to the international scene. We have failed to do that in the bill.

The government failed to heed the recommendations of a number of organizations and members of parliament who have pressed hard for a strong piece of legislation in this regard. It is by all accounts a weak bill and a missed opportunity in terms of international trade.

Time and time again in the House and outside the House it has been said that we have an opportunity now before us with the bill to develop and pursue Canadian trade in a manner consistent with Canada's obligations to protect the environment and human rights. That seems to be the essence of the task at hand and the very purpose of the bill.

It is legislation that has been reviewed for three years. It was intended to address major concerns with respect to Canada's role in trade on the international scene. It was to ensure consistency with trade and our need to deal on an economic basis with other nations vis-à-vis our longstanding traditions and commitments with respect to human rights and the environment.

The bill is also partly in response to recommendations made by the auditor general in May 2001 and should be seen from the perspective of whether or not it meets the test of answering the criticisms of the auditor general made at that time.

We have heard from many speakers today about the weaknesses of the bill. I will reiterate some of those from the perspective of the New Democratic Party. Our criticisms are best summed up by a statement issued a week or so ago by a coalition of organizations that has been monitoring the legislation over a period of time and has developed considerable expertise in the area.

I am referring to the coalition of 17 non-governmental organizations that proposed some very significant suggestions around the Export Development Act and that today are expressing grave concerns about the failure of the bill to take into account those concerns and those suggestions.

On September 21 the coalition of NGOs reacted with very grave concern and disappointment that the concerns it had put forward regarding Bill C-31 were not taken into account. The coalition co-ordinator of the NGO working group, Émilie Revil, said:

We need to amend the Act to make sure the Export Development Corporation upholds Canada's commitments to protect the environment, human rights and the public right to basic information. The changes presented yesterday will have negligible impact on the daily operations of the Corporation. They leave a proven bad driver behind the wheel.

That says it all in terms of the expectations around the bill and why it falls short in terms of obligations and responsibilities. It was an opportune moment to address those very concerns. There were suggestions made about how that could have been done.

It is not too late to do just that. There are changes that could be made to the bill to address those concerns and show good faith with respect to the community that has been working so long and hard on good legislation. Canada must continue to play a leadership role when it comes to international trade and to our export development corporation. We must ensure that we are always mindful and respectful of our obligations to preserve and protect the environment and to enhance and uphold human rights.

The three areas that the NGO community recognized as shortcomings in the bill are the same as those enunciated by hon. members from the Bloc and ones that the New Democratic Party also feels strongly about.

The first concern is with respect to the environment and whether the bill actually has a meaningful mechanism in place to carry out proper environmental assessments of any projects undertaken by the Export Development Corporation. The answer by all accounts is no. The bill does the opposite of what one would expect to be a reasonable course of action in terms of ensuring an independent environmental assessment.

It proposes to keep it as an in house function of the Export Development Corporation as opposed to making it subject to a complete review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That is a fundamental point in the debate and there is no reasonable explanation of why the bill does not ensure that path is followed.

There is absolutely no question about the need for Canada and for the Export Development Corporation's environmental review framework to follow this long established tradition. This framework is not new or unique. It is a model that is used by other jurisdictions. I think specifically of the export credit institutions in the United States and Japan which follow the idea of an environmental review based on an independent environmental analysis.

The issue of how Canada pursues the path of environmental protection in terms of all activities by the EDC is critical and needs to be addressed by the government through the bill. That was one of the concerns raised by the auditor general in his report of May 2001. It behoves us to try to incorporate that constructive criticism into legislation before us today. The organizations that have spoken out about that point say this very succinctly and clearly.

The NGO coalition calls for the Export Development Corporation's environmental framework to be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It calls for the mandate of the Export Development Corporation to be changed to ensure that Canada supports and develops Canadian trade in a manner consistent with our own standards and obligations pertaining to the protection of the environment.

My second point has to do with human rights. The coalition of non-government organizations has spoken loudly and clearly on this matter. Others in the House have done the same. We have done it in the Chamber as recently as this past Thursday when my leader, the member for Halifax, raised a question pertaining to a very serious situation known as the Bulyanhulu case, which has been referenced in this debate as well.

Serious allegations have been made in that case where employees of the Kahama Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Suttion Resources which is now owned by Barrick Gold, in conjunction with the Tanzanian police, buried over 50 artisanal miners by bulldozing over the entrance to the shafts in which they worked.

There is some question around these allegations. As reported in the press there are also those who refute those allegations despite having reports from Amnesty International and other organizations that witnessed developments in this regard.

What is clear in this case is that these allegations must be investigated. There needs to be a full scale independent inquiry into Tanzania to determine what happened, why it happened and what our international obligations are as a result of these developments.

It begs the larger question of what we are doing through the legislation to ensure that human rights are respected and enhanced in all activities of international trade, specifically pursuant to the Export Development Corporation. It has been our expectation, as I assume is the case among other parliamentarians and many Canadians across the country, that the bill should first and foremost stand up in terms of our role and responsibility for the protection of human rights.

The bill does not take those concerns seriously and does not ensure that there are mechanisms entrenched in it to provide for that kind of leadership by the Canadian government to ensure that all avenues are pursued in terms of human rights violations.

The third point, which was also part of the auditor general's criticism of the Export Development Corporation, pertains to transparency and public disclosure. This has been a very important part of our deliberations in parliament of late as more and more Canadians show a concern about democratic traditions being upheld in parliament and in every legislature of the land.

It is important that we take these concerns very seriously and do whatever we can to ensure that the bill before us respects the commitment we make to the Canadian people to be prepared at all times to be fully transparent in our work and ready to disclose in a full and open way the policies, practices, and programs pertaining to the Government of Canada.

It is absolutely clear from various analyses that Bill C-31 fails to entrench the absolute maximum in terms of public disclosure. Despite calls for the Export Development Corporation to be more open in its decision-making process, Bill C-31 places no new requirements on EDC to disclose vital information to the public. In the mid-1980s the Export Development Corporation stopped releasing project related information. I acknowledge that while the corporation is currently drafting its own disclosure policy, potentially allowing for greater transparency, there are no changes proposed under Bill C-31.

Just as I have mentioned with respect to the flawed environmental review framework and just as I have mentioned with respect to the failure to address stringent mechanisms around human rights, there is no mechanism in the bill for dealing with the fundamental question of transparency and public disclosure.

There is also no reason for the government to go slow, to be hesitant in this regard. Public sentiment is with us. People want us to do everything we can on this front. They want us to ensure fair public access in terms of any kind of government program, crown corporation and legislation. It is just a basic fundamental task for us today to try to convince the government to ensure that the legislation respects that principle and to require the Export Development Corporation to disclose basic information. Surely that is not too much to expect.

Those are the three concerns we have. I repeat them once more just by way of summarizing and by way of making a plea to the government to hear these concerns and to act before this debate proceeds much further.

The first is that we have in the bill a clear mechanism for independent environmental assessment so that the workings, the activities, of our Export Development Corporation are consistent with the principles that we all share around preserving and protecting our environment.

The second, and again we make the strongest call possible, is for an enforceable human rights review framework to be included, incorporated and integrated as a part of Bill C-31.

Finally, we in the NDP call upon the government to ensure increased transparency and public disclosure policies as an integral part of Bill C-31. We feel that all these recommendations are supported by the work of the NGO community, by the work of parliamentarians and by the report of the auditor general. The evidence is there for action in those three areas. The bill could be a very important, strong, leading edge piece of legislation if we have the will to make those changes now.

As some of my colleagues said earlier, the bill tends in fact to reduce our policies to the lowest common denominator in terms of such basic issues as environmental preservation and protection and human rights protections as well. Why do we keep doing that in this day and age? Why lower our standards to the lowest common denominator? Why not instead become a world leader in these areas, set the stage and raise the bar on such basic fundamental issues as the environment, human rights and public disclosure? They are fundamental to the values of Canadians today. They are fundamental to the whole democratic process. We urge the government to consider these comments as constructive criticism with the hope that changes can be made to the bill before we go much further.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on behalf of my constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The parliamentary secretary explained the government's side of the story. Now I have the opportunity to explain the story from the opposition's point of view. However, before I do that, for the folks who are watching and listening to the debate I would like to give a brief background.

Legislation governing EDC, Export Development Corporation, requires ministerial review of the act. A review commenced in 1998 concluded with a report by a law firm. The report was reviewed and reported by the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The result of that report is the amendment to Bill C-31 which is what we are debating today.

In general, the bill is of a housekeeping nature and simply updates the act. If passed it 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 comprehensive, independent pension plans for their employees. However CPP, one of the key pension plans managed by the federal government, is the worst managed pension plan. It has been earning even less than the interest on a savings account. Its surplus funds were grabbed by the Liberal government and 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 legislative 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 previous speaker talked about the environment. 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. How can we do that?

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.

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 and OECD countries developed common environmental guidelines for export credit agencies. Some of the guidelines include: To strengthen EDC's environmental review process, EDC needs to make changes in both the design and operation of the framework; to close the gaps in the framework's design, the EDC should focus on enhancing transparency through public consultation and disclosure; and, 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.

Let me point out that my constituents and I, and members on this side of the House, are for the protection of the environment. Canadian Alliance policy supports sustainable development initiatives.

I would venture to say that on all sides of the House, members want to protect the environment and work on projects related to greenhouse gas reductions and improved air and water quality so that we can hand over the plant to future generations in a better condition.

However, as a government, the Liberals have mismanaged our environment and have failed to provide sustainable development.

They have signed international treaties, including Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, for example, with no intentions whatsoever of carrying out their commitments. They made those commitments without consulting Canadians, parliament and the provinces. They have failed to provide these commitments with the scientific support they required to be attained. They made political decisions about matters that required scientific decisions. They made decisions not based on scientific facts or on what Canadians can do and want but just for political intervention or motives. They have allowed the endangered species legislation to die on the order paper of the House twice.

Another problem with the bill is that EDC is being used more by the Liberal government for political favours than other crown corporations and agencies,such as CIDA, HRDC, Western Economic Diversification, ACOA and many others. These agencies should not be used for political purposes. They should cater to the needs of Canadians.

There are rampant patronage appointments in crown corporations. Most recently, Mr. Bernard Boudreau, a short term senator and cabinet member, who ran unsuccessfully to become a Liberal MP, was appointed to the board of the EDC. The bill does not address the issue of patronage appointments at all. The practice should end. Those appointments should be based on merit, not on who is a friend of the Liberals. They have been giving those positions to friends and failed election candidates who were rejected by Canadians.

The Canadian Alliance recognizes the essential part financial institutions play in the everyday lives of Canadians. We will 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 would have to become a division of DFAIT, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and be directly accountable to parliament. This division could provide occasional loan guarantees and other services which are beyond the scope of private sector, such as long term insurance, political risk reassurance and projects that are not commercially viable but may be deemed to be in the interest of the nation.

We understand that the organization can get involved in those areas but not to provide political favours for the weak, arrogant, Liberal government's friends.

In 1991 the United Kingdom privatized its equivalent export agency, called export credits guarantee department, to ensure that there were no implied trade subsidies in the EU from one country to another. The United Kingdom government provided the political risk reassurance to the private company which took over the ECGD.

To serve the exporters better, there should be true competition in the export and financing business. They should have free market and competition. That is what the government should encourage. They should have the opportunity to directly deal with their own banks or insurance brokers to have their exports financed and insured. That is what businesses need. If the banks got into the business, exporters may receive 100% financing in addition to speedier and personalized efficient services.

In conclusion, the bill does not address the concerns that I have just highlighted. I ask the government to address these issues and make appropriate amendments to the act. Otherwise, I will be left with no choice but to vote against the bill.

Members on this side of the House recognize that while the EDC enjoys a high level of support in certain segments of the business community, it is being used by the Liberal government for political purposes, including recent television advertising.

We should and we must oppose the bill due to the lack of action on the patronage aspect alone, among the other things I mentioned. Therefore, I will oppose the bill.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off second reading debate on this important piece of legislation. This legislation results from an extensive review of the existing Export Development Act and of the activities of the corporation it governs, that is the Export Development Corporation or what we commonly call EDC.

The bill contains specific amendments that flow from a comprehensive review process which began in 1998 and brings a balanced approach to change at EDC. This legislation also complements other policy direction from government, as well as changes that have been initiated by EDC since the review process got under way.

It is fair to say that the period leading up to this legislation has seen the most thorough review of Canada's export financing activities that has ever been undertaken. The broad based review included public consultations, parliamentary committee recommendations, and advice and recommendations from many other experts, stakeholders and independent observers.

The bill now before the House is a product of a focused discussion on what is best for Canada in the intensely competitive world of international trade as well as a thorough examination of how best to reflect Canadian values in our dealings with other countries.

A key feature of the bill is a new statutory requirement for the environmental review of projects being considered for EDC support. This is a significant change that positions Canada in the forefront of the international community in efforts to more closely link export credit activities and environmental impacts. The bill also includes other statutory changes that provide the necessary legal basis for a number of operational changes at EDC.

Bill C-31 fulfills a commitment made by the Minister for International Trade last June. At that time the minister announced important policy changes for Canada's export credit agency. He said he would introduce enabling legislation this fall. Bill C-31 completes the package by providing the necessary legal basis for change.

The minister's June announcement was based on conclusions that came out of the review process I mentioned a moment ago. To understand how the amendments we are debating today flow from the review, it is useful to understand something of the process itself.

As members may know the Minister for International Trade, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, is legally required to periodically review the act under the terms of the act itself. This requirement stems from changes that were made to the act in 1993 by the parliament of the day.

Those changes include a significant expansion of the commercial mandate of the Export Development Corporation so that it could fill perceived gaps in the private sector financial services market or more actively support the international financing needs of Canadian exporters.

These changes proved to be very effective. The corporation's financial support to Canadian exporters grew from about $12 billion in 1993 to more than $45 billion last year. In that time Canadian businesses have expanded their market reach all over the world.

Today exports account for over 40% of our GDP. Approximately one-third of our jobs are directly dependent on our success in export markets.

It is clear that the Export Development Corporation is a key part of our country's success in export markets. The EDC has demonstrated its value to Canada by filling gaps in the private sector's financial services, by reaching out to bring more small and medium size businesses into the export marketplace, by providing needed financial support to Canada's customers in developing countries, and overall by ensuring that Canadian exporters have access to the kind of financing that will keep them competitive with exporters from other countries.

Due to the fact that the EDC plays such a key role in our country's trade development strategy, we must ensure that it will continue to meet the competitive financing needs of Canadian exporters, and especially the small and medium size businesses that are the backbone of our economy and the main creators of jobs throughout Canada.

This need has become even more important as economic conditions around the world have tightened and market conditions for Canadian exporters have become even more competitive. At the same time EDC's operating policies and financing activities must reflect Canadian values in areas of corporate social responsibility, the environment, human rights, public accountability and transparency.

As legislators our public policy challenge is to find a balance between the twin priorities of international business competitiveness and corporate social responsibility. Bill C-31 helps to do just that. It also complements other initiatives to bring about a balanced approach to change at EDC.

For example, taken together with earlier policy guidance provided by the Minister for International Trade, the bill builds on a process of change at EDC that has benefited from the extensive public review process which took place over the past three years.

The first step in the process was the commissioning of a consultant study in 1998 undertaken by the well known law firm Gowlings. The Gowlings team undertook a comprehensive study of the Export Development Act as well as the corporation that the EDC governs. Gowlings also assessed Canada's export plans and needs within the international policy environment including extensive stakeholder consultations as well as detailed surveys and independent research.

Gowlings found that EDC enjoyed a very positive reputation in the Canadian export community. EDC is highly regarded as a Canadian success story by both its customers and its competitors.

EDC has gone out of its way in recent times to widely survey its clients. There is a tremendous level of satisfaction with the service that it delivers. I frequently hear from constituents and major companies in my riding about how important is the help and work of EDC.

I cite General Motors Defence of London, Ontario, as a good example. It is very appreciative of the efforts of EDC in the export work that it does. Some 80% of General Motors sales are in the export market.

The Gowlings report also raised concerns. It said that EDC's project financing decisions might not give proper regard to the potential environment in human rights impacts in other countries. Among Gowlings' recommendations were proposals to improve accountability on environmental and human rights matters.

The Gowlings report was tabled in parliament in July 1999 and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or SCFAIT, as well as to the Senate banking committee. Both committees held hearings, heard from witnesses and produced reports for the government's consideration.

The Senate banking committee focused on the relationship between EDC and other Canadian financial institutions. The committee's report recommended a form of private export credit guarantee that is now being studied. SCFAIT's review was more wide ranging. Through a series of hearings and round tables a broad range of advocates from both business and public interest groups as well as many other experts were heard from. Many written submissions were also received by the committee.

In his report to parliament SCFAIT's chair noted the challenge of addressing and balancing two sets of public policy objectives through EDC. On the one hand he said EDC must be open and accountable so that Canadians can ensure that it reflects their values in its dealings with other countries. On the other hand Canadian exporters must have continued access to the kind of financial services that are vital to their competitive position internationally.

The SCFAIT report offered recommendations to achieve this balance. An overarching recommendation was a proposal to amend the Export Development Act so that EDC supported activities would deliver both economic benefits to Canadians as well as meet Canada's international commitments and obligations, particularly those related to environmentally sustainable development and human rights.

Bill C-31 follows up on the spirit of that key recommendation. The Auditor General for Canada has also provided advice on EDC that the government has found helpful and that is relevant to the bill before us.

Last year, in response to a request from the government, the auditor general studied the environmental review framework that EDC had introduced earlier. EDC brought in its own environmental review process in 1999 but public concerns had been raised about its rigor and clarity. The government wanted the auditor general to examine the suitability of EDC's environmental review framework and to assess its performance in implementing it.

The auditor general delivered her report in May of this year. She concluded that EDC's environmental framework contained “most elements of a suitably designed environmental review process”. This was a useful finding. It indicated that EDC was on the right track with its approach to environmental review.

However, the auditor general also identified a shortcoming when she cited a significant difference between the design of EDC's environmental framework and its operation. Although she concluded EDC was on the right track with its approach to environmental review, she also signalled that its operating policies and procedures needed to be improved.

Following on this report, the Minister for International Trade provided a clear set of guidelines to the corporation for the management of its environmental review practices.

EDC has taken to heart the advice it has received and is currently engaged in wide public consultations aimed at strengthening its environmental review framework. In a related move, the corporation is also bringing in a new disclosure policy as a follow up to stakeholder consultations.

It is important to note that the debate on whether or not an environmental review of EDC projects is needed is over. Everyone feels that it is needed. Representatives of both the business sector and public interest groups agree on the need for environmental review. With this bill, the government is using the Export Development Act to provide a statutory basis for an environmental review process at EDC. The next step is for the corporation's board of directors to develop a directive to make the objectives and the expectations of the review process clear and workable.

EDC is now at work to develop a more rigorous environmental review process, one that will meet both economic and social responsibility objectives and one that will have the force of law as proposed by the bill. This move to a statutory requirement for the environmental review of EDC projects is a significant step forward by Canada on the world stage.

A number of other countries, notably OECD member countries, are now looking at measures that would require their national export credit agencies to carry out environmental reviews of projects being considered for support. With this bill, Canada will be among the first to make environmental review of such projects a matter of law.

At the same time, the statutory approach presented in Bill C-31 does not put Canada out of step with emerging trends and developments in other countries. For example, some Canadian public interest groups have argued in favour of bringing EDC's environmental review activities under the authority of Canada's Environmental Assessment Act. However this approach would be inconsistent with developments that are underway elsewhere within the international community, including in the OECD, where most of our export market competitors are found.

In other words, the bill positions Canada as a leader in the international move to higher standards for the environmental review of export agency finance projects. However, it does it in a way that will not put Canadian businesses at a competitive disadvantage to exporters from other countries. This is a key point. It is a further illustration of the need to find a realistic and practical approach to balanced change at EDC.

The bill also proposes some administrative amendments to the existing act. For example, the bill proposes a change in the corporation's legal name to Export Development Canada in English and Exportation et Développement Canada in French. This means the acronym EDC will be the same in both of our official languages.

This change simply reflects the reality of everyday business usage by EDC's clients. It will also allow the corporation to build on its very positive EDC brand name in Canada and abroad. I might add that by having the name of our nation, Canada, in its title, it obviously would play very successfully on the tremendous goodwill throughout the international community that we as Canadians experience every time we travel anywhere in the world. I know Canadians from all walks of life share that experience.

Other changes include: an amendment to enable the board to delegate powers and duties to committees that it may establish. This reflects modern business management practice and is consistent with practices followed elsewhere in both the public and private sectors.

An amendment to exempt EDC's activities from the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This amendment is included to avoid the potential for duplicate environmental reviews in cases when EDC may be involved in partnership with another organization that is subject to CEAA.

An amendment to enable the EDC board to establish a pension plan for officers and employees of the corporation. This amendment speaks for itself.

Finally, I want to comment on the amendment that would require the auditor general to audit the design and implementation of EDC's environmental review process at least once every five years. This too is a key measure. It ensures that EDC will remain publicly accountable for its environmental review performance. I also note that the Minister for International Trade has asked the auditor general if her first audit could take place after only two years. This is not required but the minister has been very proactive in putting forward this proposal, and should be applauded for it. It shows how seriously the minister and the government view this entire initiative in showing environmental accountability.

The amendment to require EDC's board to establish a directive to determine whether a proposed project is likely to have adverse environmental effects should be welcome news for those who want legal force for environmental review at EDC.

The amendment to require the auditor general to audit the design and implementation of that review process should be good news too. It means that EDC's environmental review performance will remain subject to the scrutiny of the auditor general, an officer of parliament who is independent of the board, or for that matter of the government.

To conclude, EDC is a vital part of Canada's export development efforts. Businesses, large and small, all across Canada depend upon the corporation to provide the financial services they need to be successful in the intensely competitive international marketplace. I have cited already the example brought to me repeatedly by my friends at General Motors Defense in London, Ontario.

At the same time, as a crown corporation, EDC must reflect Canadian values in its policies and operations. Environmental review is an essential aspect of that. The bill would provide statutory force to this key area of corporate social responsibility.

To sum up, there are three basic reasons why the House should support the bill. It facilitates the continuing process of change toward a stronger and more effective EDC. It brings the force of law to the environmental review of EDC projects. It ensures that the auditor general, on behalf of the Canadian public, will continue to monitor and report on EDC and its environmental review performance.

I would urge all my colleagues in the House to support the legislation.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister for International Trade]

moved that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear waste bill, followed by resuming the debate on Bill C-33 on Nunavut surface rights. Should this bill be completed before the end of the day I would then propose to advance the emergency debate previously scheduled for this evening.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-32, the Costa Rica trade agreement. I do not propose to call other legislation tomorrow.

On Monday we will begin consideration of Bill C-31 concerning the Export Development Corporation, followed by Bill C-30, the courts administration bill, followed by any previously listed business that has not been completed if such is the case.

Immediately after I complete reading this statement I will be proposing a special order which will make it possible to have a take note debate on the airline industry on Monday evening.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday we will deal with Bill C-34, the transport tribunal bill, and any unfinished business.

For Thursday and Friday I hope to be consulting with House leaders of all parties regarding the adoption of the modernization committee report, second reading of the foreign missions bill which will be introduced shortly, and the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill that we pass once per parliament.

Pursuant to the business statement I just made, I believe you would find unanimous consent pursuant to earlier discussions to move a motion. I move:

That, at 6.30 p.m. on Monday, October 1, 2001, the House shall continue to sit and shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That the committee take note of the difficulties experienced by the Canadian airline industry”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (1) the Speaker may from time to time act as Chair of the committee (2) no Member shall speak for more than ten minutes (3) the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”, (4) when no Member rises to speak, or at 10.00 p.m., whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise and (5) when the committee rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

Export Development Act

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Attack on the United States

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are only six days from the morning of September 11, 2001, a new date which we all know will live on in infamy. On that day, in a few harrowing hours, the world was changed forever.

None of us will ever forget where we were in the moments we first heard that planes had struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but for many people, including hundreds of Canadians, that awful moment will never end. There will always be a missing daughter or son, husband or wife, or mother or father who will never return.

It is to the victims of these barbaric acts, to their families and to their loved ones that our hearts, our minds and our prayers must go first. We must let these families know, those who have suffered these losses, that we are with them, that this parliament is with them and that Canada is with them.

Last week's horrific attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania have shocked everyone in the civilized world. These mass hijackings and suicide attacks were more than a crime; they were barbaric acts of war. They were aimed straight at the heart of our society. I say society because these attacks were not aimed just at New York or even just at the United States. They were aimed at everyone in the world who believes in democracy and freedom. They were aimed at everything we hold dear here in Canada also.

Our first thoughts must turn to those who were lost in this horrific attack and to their grieving families: the passengers and crew of those airplanes, the men and women working in the office towers, the pedestrians below those towers, and the brave firefighters and police who rushed in only to be killed themselves. Our thoughts are with these brave souls. They died because they lived in freedom and freedom was targeted for attack.

The very next day following the awful attacks in New York, the people of New York, hurting and feeling great pain, returned to their jobs. Many opened their shops, some of which were covered in ashes, and with their hearts aching but their heads held high they said to a watching world “We are bruised but we will not be broken”.

Let us join them in that spirit to do what must be done to stop the forces of terror and tyranny and to keep open the doors of freedom and peace.

Our hearts go out to all our brave neighbours in the United States, that great beacon of hope and freedom to the world, our greatest ally and our closest friend. When Canada has needed it in the past the United States has been there for us. When the world has needed it, the United States has been there. Along with Canadians, the brave men and women of the United States crossed the Atlantic and Pacific in the second world war and stopped tyranny. Their determined valour was exceeded only by their friendship in the peace that followed.

Now is the time for Canada and Canadians to stand by our great friends and great allies as never before.

I want to thank the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister for their words of solidarity toward the United States. During this crisis it is important that MPs from all parties put forward a united front. I will do that. Others will do that.

Today I know that every member of parliament from every party would call himself or herself a Canadian, an ally, a friend, not just a member of a particular party.

The Prime Minister has my full support as we stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States.

I would also like to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians, from RCMP officers and customs agents to airport personnel, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and citizens who donated blood, who responded with such compassion and concern in this crisis. They have shown that Canadians will stand with the United States, our greatest friend and ally, in its hour of need.

On behalf of Canadians, the Prime Minister called for a national day of mourning last Friday. We deeply appreciated that opportunity to express our sorrow and show our unshakeable support for our American neighbours and for Canadians who suffered loss. In a great show of Canadian solidarity and support on Parliament Hill last Friday and in similar ceremonies across the country, Canadians sent that message. The only element missing from that ceremony was the acknowledgment, in this time of sorrow and heartbreak, of our Creator, because in the days ahead it is only with divine wisdom, grace and understanding that we shall overcome.

As we join with the people of the United States and especially with the families of the victims to remember the dead, let us now dedicate ourselves to protecting the living. The events of September 11 were not merely tragic, like a train wreck or an earthquake. They were evil, as the Prime Minister has said. We must make sure that this kind of evil shall not prevail.

President Bush has rightly called this struggle the first war of the 21st century. Make no mistake. The war on terrorism is not merely the moral equivalent of war, like a war on drugs or a war on poverty. This is a genuine war, which can only be won, as Sir Winston Churchill said of another long struggle, with blood, toil, tears and sweat. Canada, in invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, has joined with our allies in declaring that this attack on the United States is an attack on ourselves, the first such declaration in the 50 year history of NATO.

This is not just an American struggle, for the terrorist war is aimed not only at America nor is it being fought only in America. It is being fought throughout the world, including here in Canada. The suicide bombing of the World Trade Center is an attack on Canada as well. Terrorists have declared war on the entire free world and the entire free world must declare war on terrorism.

This is a war not with ghosts but with real people. Osama bin Laden has been publicly identified as the prime suspect behind these murderous acts. He has been sheltered, if not aided and abetted, and time will tell on that question, by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The free world must tell all states that no matter what their ideology, supporting or condoning terror against civilians will never, ever be tolerated.

However, while bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement or other radical groups from the Middle East may be guilty of these infamous acts, we know that the overwhelming majority of Arabs and Muslims here in Canada and around the world deplore and abhor these attacks as strongly as we do.

I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member of parliament for Edmonton--Strathcona, whom I believe is the only Muslim member of the House. He has told me of the sensitivity of this issue in Canada's Muslim community at this difficult time. The true meaning of Islam is surrender to God. The religion of Salaam, or peace, is diametrically opposed to these kinds of evil acts. The Islamic beliefs in peace and brotherhood are among the elements which make our Canadian communities strong and caring places in which to live. At this hour of darkness, let us reach out in a special way to our peaceful Arab and Muslim friends and neighbours here in Canada and let us reject any backlash against the innocent even as we strive to bring the guilty to justice.

The true teachings of Islam are diametrically opposed to the terrorists' interpretations of them. I am therefore calling upon the public to reach out to our Arab and Muslim friends here in Canada and to reject all forms of discrimination toward innocent individuals.

Let us not allow the barbarism of a few extremists to taint an entire community or religion. There must indeed be justice, but only for those who are guilty.

Canadians do not dwell often on thoughts of war. We are thankful for having enjoyed a long season of peace. When we consider our role in the world, we are more likely to think of Canadians keeping peace than waging war.

Some in this country have already begun to say that talk of war is overblown and irresponsible and that we must instead address the root causes of terrorism. This is true. Root causes must be addressed, but it is sheer folly, let there be no mistake, when we say that the root cause of terrorism is the terrorists themselves. The hatred that moves them to massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with.

It is not a matter of shades of grey when it comes to these barbarous acts of evil. It is set in black and white. This is not a time for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity. As Canadians, as subjects of this peaceable land, we did not seek this conflict, but however much we might tell ourselves that we are not targets, that we really are not involved and that this is not our war, the reality is that we cannot avoid it. As I said last week, there are no rearguard positions in the struggle against terrorism, only front lines. Canada is on the front line whether we want to be there or not. In the words of Prime Minister Blair:

People of all faiths and all democratic political persuasions have a common cause: to identify this machine of terror and dismantle it as swiftly as possible.

In the past when summoned to action in World War I when we were a nation of only some eight million people, 625,000 soldiers went into action from Canada. In World War II we again made a huge effort, especially in relation to the size of our population. As well, in Korea and in the gulf, Canada proved itself ready. We joined with our allies and did our share, sometimes at great cost.

Now it is no different. The war on terrorism will require real sacrifices and new priorities. Now we must face the difficult question of whether Canada is ready to face this new struggle. Canada is a free and democratic society. It is precisely because we are a free and democratic society with values and desires to protect our way of life that we cannot avoid the awful responsibility of joining the war on terrorism.

The form of democracy we are privileged to enjoy is the Westminster parliamentary system. In our historic form of democratic government it falls to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask difficult and at times painful questions and to pose alternatives as to what the government should do.

In my address today and in the speeches from Alliance and other opposition members of parliament, we will pose important questions as to whether Canada is sufficiently prepared to face this challenge that has been thrust upon us. For several years the official opposition has consistently raised issues of border security, the integrity of our refugee identification system and the need for more resources for military, security and intelligence purposes. We have drawn attention to terrorist activity within Canada. In our view the government unfortunately has not always responded as fully as it should have to these concerns, but the world has changed since September 11, 2001, and what was an important if sometimes overlooked concern before September 11 has now become an absolute moral imperative since September 11.

Addressing these issues of national security must now become the single highest priority of the Parliament and the Government of Canada.

Today, the official opposition does not wish to rehash the past, to dredge up past mistakes by the government; instead we wish to propose concrete and constructive solutions for the future.

The official opposition does not want to fix blame. We want to fix the problem.

Today I would like to propose three important changes that would better equip the Canadian government to engage in its battle against terrorism.

First, we must equip ourselves with anti-terrorist legislation.

Second, we must ensure that we have secure borders and airports, by protecting ourselves against professional terrorists.

Third, we must provide our army, police and security intelligence service with the needed resources to engage in this battle as well as a clear mandate.

If Canada was inadequately prepared in some of these areas before September 11, the question before us now is how to respond adequately, now that we know we cannot avoid this fight.

In 1996, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the United States brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act signed by President Clinton. In Canada the interdepartmental intelligence policy group reviewed the U.S. legislation but concluded “that the need for such a scheme or its potential effectiveness could not be established”.

In 2000 the United Kingdom, which already had strong anti-terrorism legislation on its books to deal with the threat of the IRA, brought in new sweeping anti-terrorism legislation to deal with international terrorism operating within the U.K.

The official opposition has pointed to the British terrorism act 2000 as an example of the kind of effective legislation that we feel Canada needs to deal with the threat of terrorist groups operating within our borders.

Both the U.S. anti-terrorism act of 1996 and the British anti-terrorism act of 2000 took concrete steps to name and outlaw specific terrorist organizations operating within those countries and to ban any fundraising or other support activities on their behalf.

Yet in Canada the government has avoided the approach of naming and banning specific terrorist organizations and their front groups. This is a step that no longer can be put off.

Canada is a signatory to and indeed helped to draft the 1999 United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which calls for a complete ban on all forms of fundraising for terrorist organizations. Unfortunately Canada has not ratified this convention and has not yet tabled legislation to give it force and effect.

Bill C-16 which allows the government to strip charitable status from groups raising funds for terrorism is a first tentative step, but it falls short of an outright ban on terrorist fundraising.

Bill C-16, which is being debated in this parliament, would make it possible for certain groups financing terrorism to be stripped of their not for profit organization status.

This is a step in the right direction, but we are still a long way from having true anti-terrorist legislation that would ban the financing of terrorism in Canada and eliminate such groups from this country.

We know that terrorist groups such as Babbar Khalsa, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army have all raised large amounts of money in Canada and continue to do so. Indeed in 1998 CSIS reported that there were some 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. In testimony that year before a Senate committee, CSIS Director Ward Elcock said:

As only a partial list, individuals and groups here have had direct or indirect association with: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, suicide bombings in Israel, assassinations in India, the murder of tourists in Egypt, the Al Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia and the bombing campaign of the Provisional IRA.

He went on to say that we cannot become, through inaction or otherwise, what might be called an unofficial state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow that to happen.

Giving the solicitor general and the CCRA the power to strip charitable status from these organizations and their front groups is not good enough. Governments must name these groups, define them, publicly outlaw them and ban all fundraising on their behalf.

The government should have the power to freeze and seize the assets of terrorist organizations and their front groups. We look forward to more input in this particular area of legislation and we look forward to the government response in this particular area. We must deal with this issue.

The second broad area I will address is the security of our borders and airports and how we can better screen people arriving in Canada to prevent possible terrorists from reaching Canada in the first place.

The security of Canada's borders and airports is a vital national and international security issue, but it is also a vital economic issue. Canada relies on a billion dollar a day flow of trade to and from the United States as a linchpin of our economy. Last week's airport and border shutdowns and delays will likely cost our economy tens of millions of dollars.

The fact that our two countries share the world's largest undefended border is not a right but a privilege. If we expect to maintain the kind of access to the United States and it to us that we have enjoyed in the past, we must now take steps to show our American neighbours that we are every bit as concerned as they are about maintaining security and preventing terrorism and organized crime.

We remember the threat posed to the Canadian economy by the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1997. It was only significant and hard lobbying by the Canadian embassy and others that won changes to the legislation to exempt the Canadian-U.S. border. Will that be the case after September 11, 2001? We must work in this regard with all diligence.

What kind of measures may be necessary to ensure security at our points of entry? Our critics in that area have been working diligently with security forces and others to help identify the things that must be done. We will consider the various ideas being brought forward and suggested, whether it is increased implementation of electronic passport screening or the idea of air marshals and other steps that must be taken to grant security on our airlines.

At our land borders Canada customs officers should be issued the right training and equipment to deal with the increased security that will be required there. Our critics in that area will bring forward specific items related to those areas.

There is no question that these steps and others will cost more money. The United States Congress has already authorized $40 billion in spending as simply a first instalment on clean up measures and anti-terrorist activities.

The official opposition will support new spending in these areas, even if it means going beyond certain current spending plans, as long as we are assured that other spending in low and falling priority areas is carefully pruned.

Most of these changes can be done through a reallocation of resources and an attack on wasteful spending. This type of scrutiny is difficult with a government which has refused to table a full budget, but that will be the subject of another day. We are focused on these issues. We are focused on solutions.

We also must look at tougher screening systems being put in place to keep people who pose security risks to Canadians and others from entering the country in the first place. For those currently in the refugee identification system who have not yet received landed status or citizenship we need better tracking to make sure we are able to locate possible security risks. To do that rapidly this should be an immediate priority. We need the resources and the will to do that.

We are known as a country which welcomes with open arms refugees who are seeking freedom and democracy. Unfortunately we are also known somewhat to be soft in not identifying and dealing rapidly with those who are a risk. Refugee claimants who break the law or people who enter this country illegally, especially where there are concerns about security risks, should be immediately detained or deported, not simply asked to check in at an Immigration Canada office once or twice or month.

We must take the proper steps in this regard. We need to do this and we need to do it with all diligence.

Bill C-11 which is currently before the House does not address many of these concerns. It represents in some ways a step backward from the previous Bill C-31 which died on the order paper before the last election. Bill C-11 should be amended to include broader measures to ensure the security and integrity of our refugee system and should be returned to the House.

As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has pointed out, the war against terrorism in which we are now engaged will be unlike other wars. The enemy is both at home and abroad. They do not take openly to the battlefield but hide in shadows. While this effort may involve conventional warfare against states who harbour or sponsor terrorist cells, we must recognize, as has been identified, that they are also present inside Canada and the United States.

Fighting the multi-headed monster of terrorism means attacking all its operations and doing it simultaneously. We will address in detail the area and concerns of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which has lost 28% of its personnel in the last decade. We will address the areas of the RCMP and its situations related to lost resources. Of course the largest infusion of resources will have to go to the beleaguered Canadian armed forces.

Over the last year the Canadian forces has declined from 90,000 to 55,000 personnel and is on track for further declines. This is a dereliction of our duty. We must support our armed forces and send that message to our NATO partners around the world.

Last week NATO invoked article 5 for the first time in its history. President Bush made it clear that he is building an international coalition to combat not only terrorist cells but their state sponsors. We must work with and be part of that coalition. Unfortunately the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has resorted to belligerent rhetoric about its support for Osama bin Laden rather than co-operating with the United States. The prospect of a conventional military campaign is not remote.

If and when the need arises for military action, the United States and NATO will expect Canada to provide a commitment. We must be willing and prepared to provide it. It is for this reason that I am asking the Prime Minister to be crystal clear regarding our commitment to the United States and NATO up to and including, if necessary, military involvement within our capacity to do so.

NATO is perhaps the most successful military and political alliance in history. Its decisions on military action are made with both care and deliberation. We are obliged to be part of that. Now more than ever Canada's voice and vote of commitment needs to be heard in the clearest of terms, both in the camps of our friends and the hidden dens of our enemies.

This weekend we have heard the menacing threats. We have heard warnings against freedom loving nations not to assist the United States in any military action. Our government must be clear. It is not the time to give any signal to the barbaric enemies of freedom and democracy that we will do anything less than stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends, the Americans and our NATO partners, in the face of this insidious threat.

This is not a time for half measures. It is not a time to bring forward previously announced initiatives and relabel them as anti-terrorist measures. There are some positive elements in current proposals like Bill C-16 and Bill C-11, but they do not go far enough. We must carry them forward. We must do everything that is within our power and will to do.

We will continue to bring forward constructive criticisms and suggestions. They will be put forward in a spirit of unity and solidarity with the Prime Minister and his cabinet as we enter this first war of the new century.

I hope the Prime Minister will accept these constructive criticisms and suggestions in the spirit in which they are given: for the furtherance of our common goal to defeat terrorism at home and abroad.

Over the next few weeks there will be times to discuss and debate whether we are moving fast enough or far enough in certain areas. There will be times to debate whether Canada could have or should have been more prepared. However today is a day to show unity and resolve.

We show unity in standing with our American neighbours, especially the families of the victims of these horrible attacks. We show unity in mourning our own Canadian dead. We show resolve in facing the enemy of international terrorism and announcing that terror in all its forms will not be allowed to stand.

Last week the world saw the face of evil. However good may yet be able to arise out of the evil if the citizens of the free countries of the world rise as one, say that this evil shall not stand, and work together to eliminate it from the earth.

In closing, I would like to say that I am proud to join with the government in supporting this motion. I trust it will be first of many actions we will take together as parliamentarians and as Canadians, united in this war against terrorism.

In these next days and weeks may God grant wisdom to our Prime Minister and to this parliament. God save our Queen. God keep our land glorious and free.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-11, as I have done on behalf of the New Democratic Party throughout the entire legislative process dealing with this bill on immigration and refugee policy.

The bill was touted as constituting a major overhaul of the Immigration Act. It was supposed to be a long awaited replacement for a law that has been in place for more than 22 years. We all know that it replaces Bill C-31, which died on the order paper when the federal election was called, so the government had a second chance to get this right but refused. It had an opportunity to get up the courage and lead with some vision, but it failed miserably.

It is rare in my experience to deal with a government bill that is so seriously flawed as this one, so universally opposed as Bill C-11. Certainly I know that in our committee discussions there was universal opposition to the bill on the opposition benches. That was before today, before the leader of the Alliance Party rose in his place and appeared to be contradicting the good work, on many different levels, of the Alliance critic for immigration.

I hope the wisdom of the critic for the Alliance will prevail and that we will see a co-operative effort on this side of the House in continuing to apply pressure on the government to improve the bill and to think twice before allowing it to come to a vote today. I know that seems a bit far fetched, but the sentiments we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast were very clear and precise. Canadians do not want to see this kind of rigid, restrictive and punitive approach and are very disappointed in the Liberal government.

This is an area that is sensitive. We know that. We know, based on how immigration issues are raised in the House and the concern on the part of Canadians to ensure a balanced approach, there is a need for leadership by the government to help educate and inform Canadians about the need for immigration.

On a matter of such importance as immigration policy, population policy, which really is fundamental to the whole policy area, it is hard to imagine any government proceeding without considerable backing, without even qualified support from the opposition benches or without some community organization leaping to its defence. However, that is exactly what the government is doing. It is plowing ahead despite repeated concerns, suggestions and criticisms raised by Canadians, by individuals, immigration advocates, refugee sponsors, ethnocultural organizations and people who advocate and work in the field day in and day out.

It cannot be said that efforts were not made to improve the bill. It is not for the lack of trying that we end up in this position today with a bill that is virtually unchanged from the start of the process to the end. The committee worked hard. It has been acknowledged. Canadians worked hard. Throughout the committee process we heard from over 150 different groups from coast to coast to coast. Almost in unison they spoke against the bill.

We proposed hundreds of amendments at the committee level during clause by clause. There were over 80 amendments from the NDP alone. Yet with the exception of perhaps a handful of amendments, a few small changes, the bill remains flawed. It remains a document with many offensive and troubling aspects.

I want to make it clear that for the NDP, at least, this bill is problematic not because of one or two offensive clauses but because as a whole it goes in the wrong direction. I think this is the case for other opposition parties and it had been the case for the Alliance Party as well.

The bill is contrary to the very values that Canadians hold so near and dear. The bill as a whole, in all of its parts, is a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity and is regressive in many ways. Many have told us that bill would in some cases actually make the situation even worse. Imagine that. After all the consultations and the successive bills presented on this matter, it is not even possible to draw the conclusion from all groups involved, including experts and concerned citizens, that the bill is better than the present 22 year old law. That is what we are hearing.

Imagine a Liberal government bill being so roundly criticized not because it offends, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition and a few others, the extremist elements of our society, the right wing elements or the conservative doctrine in the country, but because it violates fundamental principles in the areas of democratic rights, civil liberties and humanitarian ideals. That is astounding.

As so many told us throughout the whole process, the bill, when all is said and done, is un-Canadian and undemocratic and it is certainly un-Liberal. Liberal members in the House today should be ashamed for supporting this bill and for refusing to rise in their places and speak against this very regressive legislation.

Legislation in the immigration and refugee policy field should flow from our history, our traditions and the values of Canadians and it should be based on population needs. In terms of history, as many have said in the House, this country has been defined by the waves of immigration that have taken place over a long period of time.

We have all said in the House that except for Canada's aboriginal peoples all of us or our ancestors came from somewhere else. We are all immigrants and we value the fact that our society is diverse. We see Canada gaining strength from adversity in terms of our climate and our geography and also from our diversity in terms of the successive waves of immigration and the ethnocultural diversity of the country.

I think it is fair to say that Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse societies in the world. It has certainly been stated that way by Gwynne Dyer, who wrote a wonderful piece in Canadian Geographic in the February 2001 issue, in which he said:

What is truly remarkable is the ethnic profile of the immigrants to Canada, which is unique in how closely it matches the global distribution of the human population...Canada, more than anywhere else, is truly becoming the world in one country.

Canada's legacy, Canada's history, is about that diversity. It is not just about the number of people who have come from so many different places. It is about how we treat and deal with one another in the context of being a mosaic. It is our tradition and our values that have shown the way. Canada is a model for the world in terms of respect for differences, for not imposing one view or one way of thinking or one way of life on our immigrants and the people who make up this country. Our way is one of easygoing acceptance, of generosity and tolerance and respect for differences. We do not impose some uniform identity on the immigrants who come to this country.

One would think, based on our history, traditions and values, that today we would be at a point of advancing openness and tolerance in the form of the bill before us.

That happened about 30 years ago. That was a significant part of our history. The government of the day under Pierre Elliott Trudeau actually looked at this as an important policy area that had to be addressed. We saw legislation introduced that allowed for the doors of our country to be opened up and for immigrants to come to this country from all over the world.

Here we are today in the year 2001, the start of the millennium, with the hope that we could build on that history and that tradition. Instead we are looking at probably one of the most restrictive and punitive pieces of legislation that parliament has seen in a long time. It is certainly out of character in terms of Canadians' expectations with respect to Liberals in this country.

Some of the recent developments illustrate what kind of situation we are dealing with. It is not just a regressive, restrictive, punitive law but also a fortress mentality that is deeply entrenched in the system. Although the minister is addressing this issue, we saw the treatment of Tinuola Akintade, the British citizen who received such rough treatment at an airport in this country, thus showing us that legitimate visitors are sometimes treated like criminal suspects in the country today.

We have also learned some lessons from the whole episode with respect to establishing honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela. Although it is very important for the government to have taken this initiative, and we have supported it every step of the way, we certainly were appalled at the one or two Alliance members who objected to recognition for Nelson Mandela.

We are also galled by the decision of this government to make such an important statement at the same time that it is bringing in a bill that, if we were able to repeat history and he was seeking refuge from his particular circumstances, would have denied Nelson Mandela the ability to enter this country in the first place. As we have heard from many organizations and certainly from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who made this point repeatedly during the process pursuant to Bill C-31, Nelson Mandela would have been denied entry into this country because he would have fallen under the definition of being a terrorist.

This point was made so well recently in an article in the Globe and Mail written by Sharryn Aiken and Andrew Brouwer, who stated that for many individuals the provisions of Bill C-11 actually mean:

—that merely associating with known suspects, sympathizing with a national liberation struggle or doing some community organizing in Canada will be enough to get a person labeled “member of a terrorist organization,” if the cause in question happens to be on the government's informal...blacklist. By permitting such findings of guilt by association, the provisions violate international standards and principles of criminal law, bringing to mind some of the worst excesses of the McCarthy era.

The other important point in this debate is the need for this legislation to reflect population policy, for it to be based, to be founded, on our vision as a country in terms of numbers, in terms of where we want to go, how we want to grow and at what speed, and how we meet the needs of citizens in this nation.

Canada can no longer count on a steady stream of prospective immigrants knocking at our door seeking admission. We are just not competitive any more. We are not competitive because we have moved so far toward a very punitive, restrictive process.

The numbers say it all. We have heard so much from the minister about opening the front door. We have heard so much about trying to get our immigration and refugee population up to 1% of Canada's overall population.

If that were the case today we would be at about 300,000 new immigrants or newcomers to Canada. According to the latest statistics, we are not even close. The numbers are a little higher than they were in 1967 when a Liberal government opened the doors and brought in legislation at that time.

We are not making great progress toward meeting that minimal goal of 1% of our population. We are not meeting that goal in terms of immigrants or refugees. We are not contributing in a major way, as many Liberals have stood up in the House to suggest, for Canada to be a home for displaced persons and people in need of protection. We are told over and over again how Canada is a model in terms of refugees, yet when it comes down to the actual numbers, for the last year for which we have statistics, we are at about 25,000 refugees. I do not think that is something to brag about. It certainly points to the possibilities for more openness when it comes to both immigrants and refugees.

We are a large country. We have the second largest land mass in the world. With only a little more than 30 million people, we can do better than this in opening our doors to people who want to come to Canada. We have to do better if we are really serious about renewing ourselves as a population and ensuring that we continue to meet the economic and social needs of Canadians.

We heard from many groups that made that point, especially people from Manitoba such as the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council and the Citizenship Council of Manitoba. Both organizations have said time and time again that our demographics show that we are both aging and we are not having enough offspring to replace our current population. This was a point made by the minister today.

Then the question is what is the action to deal with that situation, and why have we not taken more steps to open our doors? Is this what Canadians want? What affect will this have on our social and economic well-being? Can we survive as a nation if we cannot be competitive because of a stagnant population? Is this truly the kind of vision we have of Canada in terms of the global community?

The point of all the presentations we have heard was to base our policy on history, values, traditions and on population needs. We have failed to do that through this bill. We have lost an important opportunity.

What the government is really doing with this bill is protecting Canada from the world instead of uniting and re-uniting families and building a nation. It seems to me that the bill is predicated on that fortress mentality of keeping out the bad guys and protecting Canadians from negative elements in the world. The bill fails to do what is fundamental to the task at hand, which is to ensure that we allow families to be re-united and that we build the country on the basis of the contributions that each individual and each family make, just as our ancestors did, and that in the process we build and unite this country.

What we are doing in the bill is the worst possible thing of all. We are responding to an anti-immigration sentiment that is a very small part of public opinion these days and declining with every day that passes. There is a pandering to prejudices tone in this bill that does in fact lead to xenophobia and racism. That is the last thing this place should be about. This is the last thing the government would want to do I would hope.

We are debating a bill that is keeping people out instead of re-uniting families and building a nation. We tried very hard to expand the definition of family class. We proposed adding grandparents, brothers and sisters. It was a tie vote until the chair had to break the tie and kept with Liberal policy, which was unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that the government refuses to look at the whole restrictive approach to visitors visas which is probably cause for the greatest number of concerns and cases that MPs hear in our constituency offices.

The bill refuses to deal with the head tax which does restrict immigrants from less developed and poorer countries around the world. It is discriminatory because of the head tax. We tried very hard to get that deleted.

It falls short in dealing with the whole issue of foreign credentials and ensuring that we recognize people with training, skills and education from other countries. It fails to, as we tried to do, eliminate and replace the live-in caregiver program, which is so repugnant in the treatment of women and the perpetuation of the notion of women being cheap slave labour. It denies people the right to pursue their democratic rights for appeals to the courts. We heard that over and over again. It does not live up to our international conventions on refugees and torture. It is a disappointment on many fronts.

I would like to conclude with one sentence that asks the question: In this world of globalization and rapid technology, does this have to mean harmonization and homogenization or would it not be better to ensure that the strength and the spirit of individual communities and ethnocultural populations is supported, enhanced and able to contribute to the strength of this country?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to add our remarks to this set of amendments regarding Bill C-11. I understand that these amendments deal specifically with refugee issues.

I am happy to take part in this debate for the simple reason that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is the part of Winnipeg where most people who are deemed as refugees or most newcomers seem to settle. The core area or downtown area of Winnipeg seems to be the place where they can find affordable housing and access to reasonable settlement services that help them get their start in Canada.

I am proud Canada plays an active role around the world in providing safe refuge to those who seek sanctuary, whether they have to flee religious persecution, political persecution or whatever their reason may be. There is a certain spirit of generosity I believe that most Canadians share in reaching out to those who need the safe sanctuary of Canada. Other speakers have mentioned groups that are playing a particularly active role which enables these people to leave their troubled homelands and to come to Canada.

Certainly there are church groups within my riding that work day and night to try to sponsor refugees and refugee families. They do fundraising, but their activism does not stop in terms of financial contributions. They also do a lot of follow through. They actually stay with the refugee or refugee family to help them to break into mainstream Canadian culture, to get them over the hurdles and barriers which exist when newcomers come to Canada, to help them find work and get fully integrated. Some of the church groups in Winnipeg do a wonderful job.

I want to make special mention of an organization. It is the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council found on Edmonton Street in my riding. I work closely with this organization because it is charged with the responsibility of administering the settlement services that are offered to refugees in Winnipeg. I cannot say enough about the dedication of these individuals. The people there work in conditions that we would all find very taxing. It is an under-resourced organization. I believe it does an awful lot with very little. Its budget has been cut back in recent years in terms of stable core funding, of which we have been very critical.

We believe that we are getting incredibly good value for our dollar by adequate funding to organizations like this because they do so much to alleviate the load from the department officials who would otherwise have to deliver and administer these settlement services. I would speak very forcefully of the restoration of levels of funding to organizations like the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council.

They were very vocal and active through Bill C-31 and Bill C-11 in pointing out some of the shortcomings of those bills or putting forth very solid recommendations on how these bills could be improved, not just in the refugee area, but also in areas of family sponsorship.

Even though I know we are on the subject of refugees right now, I want to make a point that I did not get a chance to make under earlier motions. Using the low income cutoff for family sponsorship is fundamentally wrong. It is a flawed way of putting a line in the sand. It does not do the city of Winnipeg any service because large cities like it are lumped into the same category. In other words, if people want to sponsor one of their family members, they have to be at a certain level of family income to undertake that sponsorship.

The family income arrived at is the same in Winnipeg as it is in Toronto, Vancouver or other major cities. I could demonstrate quite easily that the cost of living is a great deal lower in the city of Winnipeg. The cost of housing is about one-quarter of what it is in the city of Toronto. We should not be held to the same standard when it comes to the reunification of families or the sponsorship of families.

Some might think that failed sponsorships put some sort of burden on municipalities in terms of social welfare costs. I can provide some figures from the Manitoba Immigration Interfaith Council. Out of 13,700 welfare claimants in the city of Winnipeg, only 11 of those were actually the result of failed family sponsorships in immigrations. Eleven out of 13,000 is not an undue burden on our city. Those who think that could come about are simply not working with the actual facts.

Another group that has been very active in the advocacy for refugees is of course the Canadian Council for Refugees. They came before the committee for Bill C-31 and again for Bill C-11 with some very thoughtful recommendations on how the bill could be more fair in its treatment of the refugee determination and admissibility of permanent residents. I would encourage government to revisit the brief from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I do not think there is a single organization in this country that is as authoritative on this issue or has worked as diligently to try and develop standards for managing the refugee influx into this country.

It was one of the council's recommendations that brought in the whole subject of gender analysis and how necessary it was that we use that screen for any legislation introduced by parliament. I am very glad the member for Winnipeg North Centre managed to convince the committee that we needed to undertake a comprehensive gender analysis in legislation of this type.

An example which was pointed out was the need to allow women a second hearing in terms of being turned down as a refugee. Sometimes the circumstances that qualify them as a refugee are not easy for them to make public. In the initial application some information may be held back for any number of cultural reasons or personal safety reasons. If this information needs to be heard or needs to be introduced, it would have to be introduced at a second refugee hearing. That is being contemplated now through the hard work of those of the committee.

I want to thank the Canadian Council for Refugees for being the one to really push that issue and the members of the committee for seeing fit to make that one of the priorities.

Another gender issue I would like to point out also has to do with the family reunification. As we do this comprehensive gender analysis I hope this comes forward. In terms of sponsoring other family members women are disadvantaged in that regard as well. Given that there is this income threshold by virtue of which a person is allowed to sponsor or not sponsor another family member, given that women earn only 66% of what men do on average across the country, women or households led by women are less able to sponsor family members than households where the male is the bread winner.

I would suggest this is another amendment that needs to be introduced in the interests of fairness. In the interest of people's chartered rights, this issue needs to be addressed. I would hope the gender analysis that is undertaken is sensitive to that issue now that we have put it on the record.

Another organization that has been influential in advocating on behalf of refugees is the Maytree Foundation in Toronto. The organization has put forward some of the best prepared material on the subject. It was satisfied that there was some recognition of the issues it raised.

The foundation advises that that Bill C-11 includes some positive, but also some negative measures relating to refugee protection in Canada. It speaks to the issue of identity documents. There are times when personal documentation is extremely difficult to access when people flee their homeland under persecution, often in the dead of night. There are places in the world that if refugees need the documents we demand they have to make application for those documents. Then they become flight suspects. When prospective refugees make application to get their marriage licence or birth certificate from the city hall or agency, the spotlight shines on them and they may in fact not be able to get them.

I am honoured to raise the names of the organizations of the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council in Winnipeg, the Maytree Foundation, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the contributions they have made.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-11. They pertain specifically to the parts of the bill dealing with refugees and refugee sponsorships.

We spent a considerable amount of time on this section in committee. We heard from many Canadians who work directly in the field of refugee sponsorship and helping displaced persons. They ensure that Canada, as has been the case in the past, is a place of refuge, a place of safety for people confronted with political, economic or social persecution and conditions that are unacceptable from the point of view of any notion of being a civilized society.

Our main focus in this section was to try to ensure that Canada continued to be a place of refuge and respectful of our humanitarian and compassionate consideration of such cases around the globe. There was some progress. The bill took into account some of the concerns of organizations involved in refugee sponsorship and moved from Bill C-31 to Bill C-11 with some significant changes.

I also know that during the course of committee hearings the government heard further concerns and made a few changes. However there are some significant areas of concern that remain and need to be addressed.

The amendments before the House today attempt to do that. We tried to do our part at committee with dozens of amendments pertaining to refugee sponsorship and refugee protection that were not adopted by the government and regretfully were disregarded.

Our fundamental concern is that Canada should use this opportunity to ensure that we are fully in compliance with international conventions pertaining to refugees and torture.

The committee heard from numerous groups that are very expert and knowledgeable in this field. They told us that Canada through the bill is still not fully compliant with our international obligations.

It is a terrible shame that in 2001, at this opportune moment when we have a window to overhaul our immigration and refugee act, we are not taking advantage of this opportunity. Something with which we will have to deal over the next number of years and will remain a challenge is how we convince the government of the day to actually take these obligations seriously and act on them.

It was clearly stated to us by numerous organizations that Canada is not doing its part. The chair of the committee rose in the House today to speak about Canada's work on the international front and our role in terms of refugee protection and suggested that Canada was one of four countries that is outstanding in this regard.

First, I want to say that is not enough. Second, that account of the situation does not fully consider the advice and information we received from many groups. We were told quite clearly that we remain negligent in our duties as the Parliament of Canada and have not fully acted on the requirements.

We made some suggestions that we addressed this morning and afternoon such as the right of a refugee to make a second claim regardless of whether there were new circumstances or new information.

Despite what we have heard today, the amendments we proposed to allow second claims were not adopted and the advice was not considered. That continues to constitute a serious burden on some refugees and has a disproportionate impact on women in particular.

On that point, we were successful in convincing the government to agree with our amendment to conduct a gender analysis of the bill within two years of the proclamation of the act. That offers us some consolation and sense of fulfilment to know that at some point the government will do what it ought to have done leading up to the introduction of this bill, and that is a gender analysis. It is something the government promised would be done with respect to every bill introduced in the House. It promised there would always be a gender analysis and that it would always take into account the disproportionate impact of any law, program or policy on women.

It is clear from the advice we received during the hearings that the government did not do a thorough gender analysis of Bill C-11. Women continue to face a disproportionate impact as a result of many provisions of the bill.

One of those provisions has to do with the ability to make another claim after being turned down, regardless of whether there are new circumstances. Women are often not in a position to tell their whole story. The trauma they have experienced cannot necessarily be communicated to their families for risk of losing the family. They often cannot tell their whole story for cultural reasons. They must sometimes live in silence after a terrible and traumatic incident, with no recourse and no way of getting the attention of officials to ensure that their situation and the status of their family is recognized and that they are able to find refuge in Canada.

It was clear to us from the outset that, especially in the case of women, there had to be an opportunity to make a second claim. There had to be a way for women to tell their stories when it was appropriate and when provisions were made for keeping their stories as private as possible. We have not addressed that situation.

The government says it has made changes that make it a bit better. Yes, there are a few things that make it a bit better. However by and large we have not allowed for a genuine process whereby refugees who cannot tell their whole story or who must relive an ordeal are able to seek the attention of officials and get refugee status in Canada.

To help refugees make their stay in Canada a productive one, it is clear to us that the government must do more in terms of sponsoring and assisting groups that care for and nurture refugee families who come to Canada. There is an enormous number of groups here which give all their volunteer time, energies and resources to sponsoring refugees and refugee families from all over the world.

In my constituency one that comes to mind is the North End Sponsorship Team, otherwise known as NEST, a group that has devoted the last 15 years to sponsoring some 60 refugees and refugee families from four different continents. This organization, made up of the Lutheran and United churches, is prepared to take on high risk cases and refugees with large families. It is prepared to do the work that other groups are not always prepared to do, and its efforts need to be recognized and supported.

In a province like Manitoba, were it not for the work of the church community, private sponsorships and the provincial nominee program of the provincial government, there would be no increase in immigrants and refugees coming to our province.

That indicates the failure of federal government policy and this legislation to ensure we are able to continually attract newcomers to every part of the country and to compete internationally in attracting immigrants.

If we begin by addressing the fundamental issues of refugee status, the right to make a second claim, adequate documents and compliance with international covenants and agreements on refugees and torture, we will have done a great service. Unfortunately that is not the case as the bill stands.

I plead with members on all sides of the House, but mainly with government members who have failed to get the message, to act as soon as possible to address these concerns.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed motions to amend Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

Bill C-11 had a predecessor, namely Bill C-31, introduced during the last parliament, on April 6, 2000.

This is a bill that did not get passed in 2000 for the simple reason that the government decided to call an early election. As a result, more than 400,000 men and women in Canada or elsewhere in the world are still waiting on permanent resident status or permission to come to Canada.

The government has lost a whole year while men and women who view Quebec, for instance, as the promised land where they wish to spend their future, could have been allowed to immigrate to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois could not disagree with the principle that it was high time to amend the immigration and refugee protection act. This bill allows men and women who qualify as good potential citizens to settle in Canada, while closing the door to all those who, for all manner of reasons, do not and would not have the ability or the right to settle here.

The minister, who described her bill as tough and intended “to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity—so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants”, cites fine principles, which we must support. The Bloc Quebecois supports all ideologies aimed at preventing people who are not good citizens from settling in the promised lands of Quebec and Canada.

However, those good citizens in the various parts of the world could still come and enrich our fine country, which has again set as a objective, it must be said, 300,000 new arrivals annually in order to consolidate the fabric of the community affected by the aging of the Canadian population. Canada must see immigration as promising for the future. The objective of 300,000 new arrivals Canada set for itself has never been met.

That means that its immigration policy never met projections or estimates or demands from coalitions made in the course of discussions and dealings with the stakeholders from the various sectors. Finally, it means that the objectives set by the stakeholders, expert and elite, who can represent immigration across Canada, were creditable, but I repeat, Canada has never met its objective. In 2000, barely two-thirds of the objective of 300,000 new arrivals was met. All this to say that it is time we made a major amendment to the immigration and refugee protection act.

With regard to the motions tabled by our wise member colleagues, there are three I would like to comment on. They are the motions in Group No. 2, but I would like to return to the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 3 as well. I would, by this, like to have the members understand the ideology and philosophy that should underlie any legislative amendment to legislation as important as that on immigration.

With this bill, we should always keep in mind a fundamental principle, namely the principle of coercion, concentration and discussion that has always guided previous amendments to the Immigration Act. All the stakeholders must be given a real opportunity to discuss things together. This is why critical work was done in committee to support the amendments that were tabled regarding this bill.

Motion No. 2 tabled by the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with clause 5(4) of the bill, which would allow the governor in council to make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of parliament. The bill does not include all the components of the important immigration host system or program. This bill does not explain all the host programs. Regulations have been and will continue to be tabled from time to time to improve this legislation.

Regulations are adopted to improve existing acts. Clause 5(4) would allow the governor in council to make or approve regulations that were tabled in the House without first having been reviewed in committee. I can only agree with the hon. member for Laval Centre on this matter. The bill was considered in committee and it has already been the object of a major debate during the last parliament, as Bill C-31.

We have trouble seeing why the governor in council is being allowed to approve regulations tabled directly in the House, without prior discussion in committee, as in the past. I therefore support Motion No. 2 moved by the member for Laval Centre.

I hope that members will understand that the purpose of legislation as important as the Immigration Act must be debated. All stakeholders, all those who have made immigration as important as it is in Canada, must be allowed to continue their work in a climate of consensus. That is the purpose.

The consensus is there. All parties in the House are agreed that they do not want bad citizens settling in Canada, but they do want Canada to reach its objective of taking in 300,000 new arrivals annually, which it has yet to do.

What we therefore need is legislation which will create a climate conducive to consensus and discussion so that immigration may play its rightful role in our society.

As for Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance member for Surrey Central, not only must there be the consensus to which I referred in my speech on Motion No. 2, but we must ensure that bad citizens are not allowed into Canada. I think that this is a view shared by all Canadians and recognized by all parties in the House.

Paragraph 34(1)( d ) of the bill mentions:

34.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for d ) being a danger to the security of Canada;

Obviously the word danger is open to interpretation. Our colleague from Surrey Central submits that it might be worthwhile to replace this wording with the following: d ) being a threat to the security of Canada—

Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides a definition of threats to the security of Canada. Examples are provided, such as espionage or sabotage, foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of acts of violence. These definitions are far more specific than the single word danger, which can lead to serious confusion.

I will close with a brief discussion of Motion No. 9 from my colleague the hon. member for Laval Centre. The purpose of her motion is to put an end to the interminable delays in processing new arrivals in Canada. As a result of these delays, the provinces often have to meet the costs of supporting people who are already on Canadian territory or, in the case of Quebec, on Quebec territory.

Hon. members must understand that all of us here in this House should support Motion No. 9, which will make it possible to reduce the long delays involved in examining people's status as immigrants to Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do not think that is very flattering. It is unparliamentary at the very least. I will continue anyway. I have fairly thick skin.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre has done an admiral job at the committee to try to move amendments and improve some of the shortcomings in the bill. One of the significant changes that she put forward, which was in fact passed, was having a gender analysis done of the bill.

This is something that should happen automatically. It is in keeping with federal government policy since 1995 that for new legislation an adequate gender analysis should be conducted to review whether there is a disproportionate impact of any piece of legislation we might undertake, to review whether it affects women differently.

We succeeded in that. We had that amendment passed and I think it will improve the bill, because there are issues. When we talk about family reunification and about income requirements to sponsor family members, there is a gender factor. As we know, women make 66% of what men make. If a person's ability to sponsor a family member is to be tied to their income, then certainly we must have some sensitivity in that regard.

The one thing not addressed in the amendments at the committee stage is a shortcoming we have pointed out many times, that is, there was no mention of eliminating the right of landing fee, which we believe is one of the biggest barriers to attracting new Canadians to our shores. We have been calling for its eradication ever since it was introduced by the Liberal government, to tell the truth. We finally convinced the government to eliminate the right of landing fee for refugees, but it still stands to this day for other classes of new Canadians. In fact, we are also calling for the elimination of the administration fees that are still being charged to refugees. We were not successful in that, but we will continue in our campaign to have those charges and fees eradicated.

We also pointed out a number of shortcomings in the bill. One of the flaws we pointed out and wanted to change is that too much in this bill is left to the regulations. We were very concerned that members of the House and members of the committee would have very little input into the drafting of the regulations. It was the member for Winnipeg North Centre who moved agreement at the committee stage that the regulations would in fact be put before parliament for approval. This is huge. This is a really innovative change.

Again, I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre for having the foresight to bring that forward, because it was glaringly obvious to all of us who read the bill that a lot of the details that will affect the day to day operation of the immigration department will be found in the regulations and not in the act. As members of parliament we want some ability to have some say in how those regulations are crafted. With the bill, they would come before the House of Commons.

There is another thing that should have been cleared up. I appeal to the minister and the department to address it, even after Bill C-11 passes. There is very little in the former act or in Bill C-31 or Bill C-11 that helps to clear up the definitions of terrorists, criminal activity, what level of criminal we are trying to bar from entry to the country and what sort of membership and what kind of terrorist organization one must have taken part in to be barred on those grounds. The bill is very vague. It leaves far too much to the discretion of officers who may have varying ideas of how this is to be implemented.

We pointed out that if we are too absolute in barring people who may have taken part in or may have been members of terrorist agencies, if we are too strict in our enforcement of this, we could be barring people like Nelson Mandela, who was a member of the ANC, which was called a terrorist organization. Now it is called the government of the day, but at the time it was a terrorist organization that took up arms to fight for freedom.

Surely this is not the intention that the architects who drafted the bill had in mind, but it is one of the byproducts of being negligent by not being very clear about what we are seeking to achieve when we try to bar people who may have been involved in some kind of terrorist activity at some point in their lives.

Also, the smuggling of people is a very top of mind issue. I have pointed out a number of times that sometimes smuggling of people is done for humanitarian reasons, in order to get people out of harm's way, to save their lives in many senses.

The underground railway through which American slaves were smuggled was a trafficking in human beings. When we talk about cracking down on smugglers, yes, we want to stop people from exploiting people and trading in human cargo but let us keep in mind that sometimes these actions take place for humanitarian reasons. Smuggling of people can be done with the best intentions of keeping people from harm.

I appreciate being able to add my remarks on Bill C-11. We will be voting against the motion as it stands.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on Group No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-11. As the former spokesperson for immigration issues for my party, I was very much involved in the development of Bill C-31, which as we know is now known as Bill C-11. It will make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Act.

As is well known, our party has been quite critical of the shortcomings of Bill C-11 and the former Bill C-31. We were very open in our criticisms. We disagreed with both the tone and the content of the bill in many ways. We felt the bill dealt far too much with enforcement issues. We felt that the whole immigration policy dealt far too much with enforcement. It dedicated much of our time and resources to keeping people out of the country rather than trying to attract people into the country. This is the type of tone or the type of content that we now see in Bill C-11.

We pointed out that much of the impetus or rationale behind this tone found its origin in an overreaction to the Chinese boat people who drifted up on the west coast of British Columbia. The public hysteria whipped up by the Reform Party and by the Canadian Alliance Party would have us believe that the country was under siege or being invaded in some irresponsible way.

Many of us remember the reaction of members of parliament from the Reform Party in British Columbia when those boats started arriving. They were saying: “Turn them around and send them back in these rusty old tubs. Who cares if they drown at sea? They do not deserve sanctuary on our shores. They do not even deserve to have a hearing to determine if they are actual refugees”.

There were press conferences in which Reform members were saying such things. They used what was really an anomaly of 600 people within a relatively short time arriving on our shores for their own political purposes. It was an anti-immigration stance.

I am very critical that somehow the ruling party, the Liberal Party, seems to have allowed itself to be pulled around by the nose on this issue. This is the attitude or reaction that we found more and more. All they want to talk about in the bill is enforcement: how to keep people out, how to keep our borders secure, and how to stop criminals from getting in.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in debate on Bill C-11, even if my time will be quite limited.

Bill C-11 deals with immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak to this bill. I remind the House that when I was the critic for my party a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to debate this bill, which was called Bill C-31 at the time.

The purpose of Bill C-31 was to amend Canada's immigration law, which dated back to 1976.

We all agree that the time has come to review the legislation. Why? Because, as my colleague from Laval Centre pointed out earlier, those who live in an urban riding, especially in Quebec and in the greater Montreal area, realize that many citizens and families must face incredible tragedies and go through hardship because of the inconsistencies in the current immigration legislation.

With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the minister tells us that from now on it will take 72 hours for a refugee claim to be filed with the IRB, which will have to bring down its decision within six to nine months. Why do we support an improvement in the process? Because the present system is much too slow.

IRB figures from December 1999 indicate that the average time to process a claim is about ten months. Right now, there are 7,000 asylum seekers waiting for a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and this is in Montreal alone.

We can imagine that while a person is waiting for a decision from the IRB a certain degree of integration into the Canadian and Quebec society inevitably occurs, and we must not be indifferent to that. We agree that it is important to reduce the processing time.

Motion No. 2, brought forward by my colleague from Laval Centre, is an attempt to prevent the government from making regulations outside the legislative process. We would like the government to include these regulations in the future federal immigration act. Why? So that the legislation will be understandable and consistent with needs.

When I was my party's citizenship and immigration critic, I remember meeting privately with organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is located in my riding. I took the trouble to meet with them in my office.

I started off by asking them “What do you think of the bill to amend the Immigration Act?” Representatives of these organizations replied “This is not an easy question to answer, because the bill is difficult to evaluate. The government wants to pass a series of regulations, rather than include important measures within the bill”.

This is why the member for Laval Centre's Motion No. 2 is important. As parliamentarians, we must not be cut out of the loop. We must ensure that the bill is as complete as possible and not leave a large number of measures outside the process, outside the bill, in draft regulations.

Another important aspect of this bill has to do with automatic detention. It will be recalled that when the minister announced her bill a few weeks before the last election was called, her intention was clear. She was introducing a tough bill. Why? Because she naturally wanted to respond to the repeated demands from certain provinces west of Quebec seeking a tougher law.

This is consistent with other legislation, such as Bill C-7, which aims for tougher treatment of children. When I asked the government in committee to exclude minors from the detention process, I was told that this would be included in future regulations. What I wanted was for this to be a provision in the act. This would be a clear sign of the government's willingness.

A number of international conventions are mentioned in the bill. I am thinking of the convention on the rights of the child—

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise at report stage of Bill C-11. I will begin by complimenting all members of the committee who undertook some very hard work in a very short period of time.

The last time Canada had a good look at the Immigration Act was in 1978. The committee acted in a very co-operative manner, as critics from the Alliance and all the other parties have suggested. As we travelled we were impressed by the commitment of Canadians to immigration. They spoke in glowing terms about the value of immigration to the country in terms of its history and how it has contributed to our social, economic and cultural well-being. They spoke about how Canada had been built by immigration from all parts of the world and how much that immigration had been appreciated.

Bill C-11 and its predecessor Bill C-31 would build upon our great tradition of inviting people from all over the world and continue our great historical tradition of being one of four countries in the world that recognizes its responsibility to protect refugees, people who are persecuted or displaced, people who find difficulties where they live and resort to all kinds of unusual methods to leave their homelands.

The fact that this great country has been home to thousands of refugees is a tribute to the generosity of all Canadians in each and every region of the country. When we travelled that is exactly what we heard from witnesses. They told us how we could improve Bill C-11. They told us that our present Immigration Act was a great foundation but that we needed to move forward.

Bill C-11 would do that. It would open the front doors even wider. It would make it possible for families to be reunified because it would expand the definition of family class to mothers, fathers, parents and grandparents who would be able to be sponsored. It even talks about working with our partners, not only the provinces but stakeholders, municipalities, all the communities that have a part to play in welcoming immigrants and helping them resettle.

Throughout our trip from Vancouver through to Montreal, and speaking also to the people in Atlantic Canada, I heard one constant message: We need more immigration. We need to make sure the front doors are opened wider in terms of the family reunification independent class to attract the best skilled people and professionals from around the world.

We have a great need for people who can help build our economy, meet the needs of our businesses and meet our labour requirements. Most people indicated that we need more immigration, not less, and that we ought to do more in terms of the compassionate part of the bill, which is refugee protection.

The amendments introduced by the opposition and the government at the committee level have improved Bill C-11. We can recognize the great worth of immigration and make sure permanent residents who want to be Canadian citizens are further protected.

We all heard a term that was rather un-Canadian. Everyone who was not a citizen would be referred to as a foreign national. We heard loud and clear that this was not how we wanted to define ourselves. We have amended the bill to recognize the status of landed immigrants and permanent residents who we hope will want to be citizens. Everyone else who comes to our country on a temporary basis, be they visitors or students, would be referred to as foreign nationals because it is a term that is recognized around the world.

The bill would also give landed class opportunities to students or temporary workers who come to Canada and decide to stay. The process must be improved so we can process the paperwork better, more efficiently and more fairly.

We hope the committee will talk about resettlement and resources that we give to our foreign posts. The committee heard loud and clear from people across the country that they want to be involved and they want the committee and parliament to be involved in the regulatory aspects of the bill.

Motion No. 1 from the minister says that one of the bill's goals and objectives is to acknowledge that people, when they come to Canada with great professional attributes, be they doctors, nurses or skilled workers, should have their accreditations quickly recognized. Even though accreditation is a provincial jurisdiction, we must work closely with provincial governments, stakeholders, organizations, regulatory bodies and associations to make sure that people who come to our country can achieve their full potential.

We need to work with our partners to make sure we do a better job. Motion No. 1 would ensure that people's professions and careers are recognized and that they will be able to work in their professions in Canada.

Motion No. 2 from the member for Laval Centre and Motion No. 3 in terms of regulations were well received. For the first time our committee will be very involved in the making of regulations. We will be able to hold public hearings before regulations are put in place because we understand that the regulations will determine how we implement the bill.

The bill is framework legislation. It talks about values and principles but the regulatory framework is perhaps the most difficult and challenging. We must be very vigilant in reassuring the hundreds of witnesses, who talked to us about the regulations, that the regulations will be set up in a fair, equitable and compassionate manner. The committee will be involved in the fall with the make-up of those regulations. It will invite members of the public to again look at the regulations and it will put in place a process to ensure the regulations are fair and equitable to all people.

The bill, in its final form as we debate it today, with the amendments the government and members of the opposition have put forward, has been greatly improved. We wanted to make sure that people who, for one reason or another, were denied a refugee claim but whose circumstances had changed or who could not disclose the true reason they were being persecuted, could receive a second hearing.

We have built into the bill another layer where a second hearing could take place to ensure that a person who was perhaps denied protection or had been denied a refugee claim but could not put forward all the reasons could essentially come back for a review.

The bill would provide greater assurances in terms of permanent resident status. As we know, the old act says that if people leave the country for 180 days they could lose their permanent resident status. The bill now says that permanent residents do not have to worry if their jobs or families take them out of the country or that they have to be in Canada two years out of five.

We understand the global economy and that people have to travel. Sometimes people have to leave Canada but at the same time they have not given up on Canada. Their families and businesses are here. We must understand that in a global economy people have to be mobile. That is why we would protect permanent residents by assuring them that if they are outside Canada they do not have to worry about losing their permanent resident status.

The government has put forward a number of positive amendments in the bill. I look forward to debate on the other amendments members will put forward, but there is a good reason we cannot support them. In fact we believe we have taken them into consideration under Bill C-11.

Supply

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of establishing a national sex offender registry. I do so today in memory of Christopher Stephenson, an 11 year old Toronto boy who was abducted, raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender.

Joseph Fredericks had a long history of assaulting children. He spent most of his life in psychiatric institutions. He was on mandatory supervision when Christopher was killed. I fully recognize that in this particular case a registry may not have prevented this sadistic killer from committing such a horrific act. However, as many have argued here today, it may have prevented him from killing the young boy. It may have allowed police officers to find and incarcerate Fredericks before Christopher's death.

As noted in many of the speeches already presented by my colleagues, we are proposing to establish a registry that would contain the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders. Every offender would be required to register in person at his or her local police station at least once a year. During that time they would be required to provide any updated information that the police force may ask for in order to combat sex offences.

As already mentioned today, a number of provincial jurisdictions have established this registry already. In the case of Ontario, Christopher's law, or Bill C-31, received royal assent in April 2000. It established a registry that aims to ensure the safety and security of all persons in that province by providing the information and investigative tools required to prevent and solve crimes of a sexual nature.

Before proceeding further, I would like to caution members on the other side of the House, particularly those who were here in or prior to 1993, to carefully consider their position on the motion today.

I issue such a warning because I have a copy of an April 1993 document titled “A Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice Issues”. Contained within that document are a number of recommendations put forward by the then official opposition, one being to “combat Canada's growing violent crime problem.”

I commend the Liberal Party that while it was in opposition it recognized and realized there was a growing violent crime problem. That problem is still here today.

One of the recommendations that was put forward appears on page 7 of the Liberal document: “to support the establishment of a national registry of convicted child abusers”. The rationale for the recommendation was:

Sex offenders represent almost 20 per cent of the incarcerated population and 10 per cent of the conditionally released population. These numbers are not an accurate representation as they include only those sentenced to two years or more in prison. Actual figures are much higher.

Over the past five years there has been a 20.4 per cent increase in the rate of admission of sex offences. Evidently more and more sex offenders will be reintegrating into Canadian communities.

The Liberal's own findings went on to reveal:

Repeat sex offenders are more than twice as likely to commit further sex offences, much more likely to violate conditional release conditions and more likely than any other offenders to reoffend with a non-sexual offence. However, treatment programs for sexual offenders are sorely lacking.

When referring to the Tory government at the time the document stated:

The federal government is spending approximately $98 million a year to incarcerate sex offenders and only $2 million a year on treatment programs to rehabilitate them.

It went on to state:

It is the norm, when it should be the exception, that convicted sexual offenders return to communities without any counselling or rehabilitation therapy.

I do not often agree with the Liberal Party, but I certainly agree with its findings in this instance. Most of my colleagues and I agree with the information that was given out by the Liberal Party in 1993 to support its own recommendation for a national registry of convicted child abusers.

The Liberal's information is fully supported by a number of good studies which repeatedly indicate that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates of any criminal group, with an estimated 40% reoffending within five years of release.

As well, research indicates that offender treatment programs have shown limited results. Practitioners in the field of sex offender treatment never claim to cure sex offenders, but rather they claim to manage the risk of reoffending.

What has changed over the last eight years? What has changed since the Liberals produced this great document on growth and violent crime? What is it that has so adamantly changed their minds that they have not implemented the program they wished to implement in 1993? Why have they not established this registry?

Moderately more money is being spent on treatment programs. According to the CSC's most recent figures, approximately $150 million is spent to incarcerate offenders and a little over $8 million is spent on treatment. That is a slight improvement over the figures released by the Liberals when the Tories were in power.

Not all sex offenders are fully completing the courses, the necessary plans that are prescribed by the CSC officials, because treatment is not compulsory. When they are incarcerated it is not compulsory that they undergo rehabilitation programs.

I can only surmise that it must be amnesia. Perhaps the Liberal Party is growing old or perhaps it is strictly amnesia that is causing it to forget about the recommendations or promises it once so believed in, or claimed to believe in.

The Liberal government forgot the recommendation to support a registry just like it forgot the recommendation to scrap the GST, just like it forgot the recommendation to forget free trade, just like it forgot the recommendation to have an ethics counsellor who reported directly to parliament. We have a very forgetful government.

To better illustrate the need for a national registry I will read some excerpts from an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette a number of years ago. It stated:

A pedophile named Martin Dubuc was convicted...for offences against children—again. This is the same Martin Dubuc who, as a boys' hockey coach in Laval, was convicted in 1986 for molesting team members, the same creep who, after his release from prison, did not let a lifetime ban on coaching in Quebec stop him.

He simply changed locales, becoming a coach and eventually president of the Minor Hockey Association of Southwest Montreal. But that neglect by the recreation establishment is an old scandal. The new scandal involves the schools. It came to light last week when Dubuc pleaded guilty to using the telephone to threaten several boys aged 10 to 13 and to incite them to touch themselves sexually. Somehow, he had slithered his way into elementary schools as a substitute teacher. And this was not a slip-up by just one organization. In recent years, three different school boards in the Montreal area had hired Dubuc.

The Gazette went on to say:

This case illustrates the chilling way in which predators with long criminal records can worm their way into positions of trust and authority to harm children.

The author of the article went on to say that this was not a slip-up by simply one organization. It was a slip up by many organizations. One of those organizations was the Liberal organization across the way. One of them was the Liberal government because it failed to establish the national registry that it had once recommended.

In closing, I call upon members sitting opposite to honour their past promises. It is better to be late than never. Sexual criminal offences are all about control and power. For the sake of our children, let us take control away from the offender and give it back to our police forces, back to those who would fight crime. For the sake of our children, let us protect society and let us begin now with a national sex offender program and registry.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-11 for the NDP. First, I thank my colleagues who spoke earlier, our current critic of immigration and refugee policies, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the member for Winnipeg Centre. Both members did an outstanding job in presenting the concerns and position in the NDP about not only the former Bill C-31 but the current piece of legislation before the House. They have done a very good job in working with local and national organizations to understand what some of the fundamental concerns about the proposed legislation.

Coming from Vancouver East I have to begin by saying that I represent a riding, like other members of the House, which is symbolic and reflective of the cultural and ethnic diversity of Canada. Vancouver East is a community that has been built on immigration, something of which we are very proud. It has been a community that has welcomed working people from around the globe, people who have sought to come to Canada to provide a better opportunity, to look for a better quality of life and to provide a good future for their kids.

Every day in my riding of Vancouver East, whether it is in Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, the downtown east side, Grandview-Woodlands or Hastings-Sunrise, I meet families who are first generation, sometimes second or third generation, who have established their new roots and homes in this community. I am very proud to represent a riding where that kind of diversity is actually valued. It is an enrichment of our community that people of many different backgrounds, languages and classes have come to Vancouver East to make it their home.

There are probably few countries in the world where immigration and refugee policy is as significant and as fundamental as it is in Canada.

I am an immigrant myself. Like other members of the House, we came to Canada because we knew it was a very great land. We came because our parents brought us as children and we established ourselves here.

The policies and legislation enacted by the government and debated in the House go to the core of what we believe as Canadians. One of the concerns that we have expressed in the NDP is that the legislation the minister has now reintroduced is a reflection of the public mood that has become more negative about immigration and refugee policies.

I want to highlight one issue in particular because it is something that is very pertinent to Vancouver and to East Vancouver. More than a year and a half ago we saw the arrival of what has been commonly referred to as the boat people, economic migrants who are becoming involved in human smuggling out of desperation. They put themselves at grave risk and danger. They travel huge distances in very dangerous conditions, seeking a way to escape the environment they are in.

The experience we had on Canada's west coast has been reported widely in the media: the arrival of about 600 so-called boat people from the Fujian province of the People's Republic of China. It was very interesting to see the reaction in the media and the general public mood around the issue.

There are concerns about human smuggling. We have to prevent these kinds of situations from taking place. In working with local organizations I visited some women who were detained in the Burnaby women's correctional facility. At that time about 33 women were detained in jail. They had not committed a crime. They had not been charged with anything. They were incarcerated because they were considered to be at risk for flight if they were released.

In visiting those women in jail I was very taken by the situation they were in. They had inadequate access to legal representation, to appropriate cultural language interpretation, to phone calls and to any connection or visits with their children who had been taken away and placed in care. It may surprise some people to know that more than 18 months later there are still about 25 individuals incarcerated in British Columbia as a result of arriving on Canada's shores.

It is easy for us to look back historically at events that happened 40 or 50 years ago when people arrived and were not allowed entry. We can look back and say it was racist or xenophobic, that we had a fear of others arriving, but when it happens in contemporary society today it is something that is very worth debating in terms of how we react to it.

One of the concerns of my colleagues in the NDP and I is that we feel much of the response from the government is based on a very strong reaction to the arrival of the boat people. I find it unacceptable that 18 months after they arrived individuals are still incarcerated and trying legitimately and legally to file their applications for refugee status. We have a concern that this is an underlying pinning of the bill. It is a bill that seems to be based more on keeping people out rather than acknowledging the incredible role immigration has played in the country.

I have been very concerned over the last few years that the government's own targets for levels of immigration are not being met. It is very easy to play to fears in the community. It is easy to dramatize and highlight individual cases of refugees where there have been illegalities and where people needed to be deported rather than focus on the incredible positive contribution of not just new immigrants but of refugees to the country.

Although the bill does have some measures that provide for family reunification, the NDP believes there should be a much greater emphasis on family reunification and expanding the family class. We should be saying that Canada welcomes people from around the world, and that we should not be so suspicious.

I deal with hundreds of cases in my riding every year of families who are desperately seeking assistance in order to get through the system as it exists today. I am sure we have all had cases where we really feel the frustration and the anxiety that people have gone through in trying to deal with the system. Officials have incredible discretion in denying people and in deciding whether a family member can come to Canada.

I had a campaign in my riding called once in a lifetime. It was actually an idea that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration floated around about a year or so ago. She suggested that there might be a special provision, a once in a lifetime provision, whereby any Canadian would be able to sponsor someone who would not normally qualify in a family class. Unfortunately the idea was just dropped.

Local organizations in my riding, such as Success, collected more than 15,000 signatures in support of the idea of once in a lifetime. Then it was dropped like a hot potato by the minister. However, I decided to keep the idea going. We actually had a petition and a campaign on once in a lifetime, which received tremendous support. The reason we received support is that the current definitions are so narrow and restrictive that it becomes very difficult to undertake family reunification under the present policies.

Some of the other concerns we have, which have not been addressed in the bill and which we will be following up on when it reaches committee stage, are the problems around the live in caregiver program. I have had cases in my own community where women who have come into Canada through the live in caregiver program have basically been exploited. They have had their rights violated and have been placed in very vulnerable and precarious positions because of this special provision by which they gained entry to Canada.

We believe that the current legislation fails to address the gender issues that are involved in the live in care program. It bears a thorough examination to ensure that women who are coming here under the live in caregiver program are not being exploited by the system or by the situations in which they find themselves.

We have also expressed concerns about some of the provisions in the bill that, albeit an improvement over the status quo, need to go much further. I have met with organizations in my riding that have done a lot of work and analysis on the provisions for same sex relationships.

Although the minister and the government are finally recognizing, along with other changes in legislation that have come before the House, that we need to treat same sex relationships with the same kind of legal provision and equality that we treat any other conjugal relationship, unfortunately in the current bill these provisions are contained in the regulations and not the bill itself. I have had this expressed to me as a concern in terms of it leaving the community still vulnerable to any future changes in regulations.

The other matter I want to speak to involves refugees. It was very timely that yesterday the Caledon Institute and the Maytree Foundation, under the sponsorship of a human rights committee of the Senate, brought a very notable and prestigious speaker, Professor Goodwin-Gill from Oxford University, to Parliament Hill. He came to speak to a number of people who were assembled yesterday about Canada's practice of violating a UN convention as it relates to the status of refugees in this country.

Professor Goodwin-Gill, an internationally renowned expert on refugee law, has taught at Carleton University, so he is very familiar with Canada's legislation and how we process and treat convention refugees.

He expressed grave concern about the practices that have taken place in Canada which deny people access to travel or deny them other resources and programs within Canadian society based on their refugee status. He zeroed in on the fact that Canada does not meet its international obligations under the UN convention, in particular articles 25, 27 and 28 having to do with refugee ID documentation.

I feel this is a very serious situation. For those members of the House and of the Senate who were present yesterday at the speech by Professor Goodwin-Gill, I hope very much that what he said to us will be reflected in our debate and will be reflected in the amendments once the bill reaches committee and there is an opportunity to receive amendments.

To dramatize the real experience of convention refugees in Canada, present at the meeting yesterday was a young woman who is a convention refugee. I believe she was originally from northern Somalia. She is the mother of four children. She described to us with a great deal of candour and honesty the feeling that she had of being in prison because she could not access the things she needed to provide for her family.

She cannot put her teenage children through post-secondary education because she cannot afford to pay for it. She works but earns a low income, so neither she nor her children are able to access the Canada student loans program. She is established as a convention refugee, but because of the way we treat convention refugees she and her kids cannot access post-secondary education.

Those are illustrations and examples of what it means to live with the kinds of policies and procedures we have had in place. Having the bill before the House is an opportunity to redress some of those situations and to look at the real experience of what happens to refugees in the country and to say that we will not put up more barriers.

I think the real tragedy of the situation is that there is abuse in the system, as we heard yesterday. There is abuse in every system in the country, but in this area the abuse becomes the reason for setting up very punitive barriers and rules that then deny the vast majority of convention refugees full status in Canada.

That is the wrong way to do business and to approach the issue. We should recognize that the vast majority of convention refugees are here as positive contributors to the local communities in terms of work, in terms of enrichment, in terms of volunteerism, and in terms of all the things we would characterize as being a part of society. To place barriers before people and make it more difficult for them to become fully participating members of the community seems a very negative attitude and something that definitely should be changed.

We in the NDP have very strong concerns about the bill. We want to be constructive in the way we approach the bill. It is a very significant piece of legislation. It was long overdue for changes, but those changes and how they impact on Canadian residents who are here now in terms of bringing over family members from another country, or on people who wish to immigrate to Canada, are obviously of great significance.

We should take the time to be thoughtful about the bill. We should make sure it is not just a response to what is being fuelled in the media in a very negative way in terms of characterizing refugee claimants and to some extent immigration generally.

As members of the House we should have the courage to stand and say that we want Canada to be a place that welcomes people. We want the system to work fairly. We want to be able to find ways to provide family reunification. More than that, we want to look at some of the historical wrongs that have been done.

One of the flashpoints of our history in immigration has been the head tax. There has been an ongoing campaign. People in my riding of Vancouver East have been very involved in trying to eliminate the head tax. They also want recognition of the historical wrong that was done and to seek redress for it in terms of community contribution and compensation.

Unless we can do that I have grave concerns about what the new bill will be and whether we will be repeating the kinds of policies we have had in the past. Our history is based on racism and fear of others. Somehow we must change that.

The bill is very important. We have very serious concerns about it. We want the bill to be a positive instrument that will support and strengthen Canada's immigration policies in a way that is fair and equitable and does not further stigmatize or set up barriers against refugee claimants. We want it to send a message that Canada is a welcoming place that truly works for diversity and cross cultural understanding.

Immigration Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-11 dealing basically with immigration and refugee protection. I am rather familiar with this bill, on which my colleague very eloquently expressed her point of view just a few minutes ago. This bill is quite similar to former Bill C-31.

I want to address a number of issues during my speech, including the population movements which occurred in the 20th century and which were important often for economic reasons, but also for political reasons.

I also want to talk about the detention of children. During consideration of Bill C-31, I was among those who thought it was crucial to address this particular issue for all kinds of reasons, for instance, because Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child. In my mind, it was important to uphold the rights of the child, but also the international conventions signed by Canada.

I think the whole issue regarding the detention of children should be clarified in Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and not in future regulations, as the government intends to do.

I would also like to touch on another issue, namely the administrative slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is a reality we have to deal with in urban ridings. It is part of our life. People come to see us in our constituency offices because they are facing unacceptably long delays, which, we have to admit, causes terrible human tragedies.

Families are often the main victims of this administrative slowness in the application review process by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I will also say a few words about illegal immigrants. When the government introduced Bill C-31, it was more or less responding to an alleged new reality that was emerging mostly in western Canada, where more and more illegal immigrants were coming to our country, particularly from Asia.

Members must realize that this phenomenon, which is indeed new, is marginal. It is not true that the majority of those who want to come here, either as permanent residents or as refugees, do it by illegal means. Yes, this phenomenon exists, but it is marginal. Unfortunately, the government is trying to use legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to respond to a new current in western Canada even though it is in fact a minor problem.

Another aspect of the question are the costs entailed by the slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada process. I will come back shortly to a number of figures that are specific to the Montreal offices in terms of claimant waiting time and the number of claimants waiting.

Inevitably, this time frame and the slow administrative pace result in significant administrative costs to the provinces and the Government of Quebec for which the federal government should assume responsibility at some point, insofar as the law does not speed up the process and satisfactorily address the claims currently before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The last part of my speech concerns the objectives Canada is setting for itself in terms of immigration, the number of new immigrants.

We know that the government has just reached, for the first time in many years, its immigration objectives for Canada.

Quebec too has its objectives, it must be pointed out, which go far beyond the thirty thousand or so immigrants it would like to take in. Often, the slow pace of the process blocks claims currently being made abroad.

I am thinking, among others, of immigration and the embassy in Paris, where Quebec would like to attract francophone immigrants. Unfortunately, Quebec cannot achieve its objectives because of the substantial amount of time involved in the administrative process.

I come back to what I was saying before. The first point concerns the matter of population movement. The movement of people in search of a land of refuge has been a striking phenomenon of the 20th century, which, far from improving, has increased in recent years, through an increase in situations of organized violence, of violations of human rights, of wars and of conflicts on the international scene.

In 1996 the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there were 26 million refugees in the world and 30 million displaced persons. Because western countries will take them in only in very small numbers, the great majority of refugees head for the poorest nations, those close to their own.

Nevertheless the governments of these nations are beginning to feel that the demand exceeds what they can offer. Many have adopted very restrictive deterrence measures which have shifted the demand to other countries.

Today Canada is one of the rare western countries to which those in danger may still try to apply for asylum under the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention confirms the right of an individual to request asylum in a third country, but does not oblige the country to which application has been made to grant the request, in accordance with the rights and privileges of nations, whence the common notion that asylum is not a right but a privilege.

However, the welcome reserved for those seeking asylum is becoming increasingly limited, as can be seen from policies and procedures with respect to entry, application for refugee status and permanent residence, and from the policies regarding the support programs and services for which they are eligible.

The 1980s saw an increase in the number of people requesting asylum in Canada. The average since 1989 has jumped from 25,000 to 30,000 a year, one third of whom have settled in Quebec.

While they only represent a small proportion of the world total, these people in distress, who are largely from southern countries and therefore more visible than those who came in previous decades, because of their unfamiliar cultural and linguistic profiles, did disturb government authorities and the public in general.

That is when we politicians, the media and the public, in Quebec and throughout Canada, began using expressions such as phony refugees, abusers of the system and cheaters. Ten years later, these expressions are now commonly used but are not enough to move public opinion. This is why the government must now also protect the public against terrorists and criminals.

This is one of the new arguments used by Canada to justify the implementation of increasingly harsher policies against people seeking refuge here. The major argument used remains the economic weight of these asylum seekers.

While recognized throughout the world for its humanitarian traditions, Canada quickly developed, in the eighties, a tendency to restrict its open door policy for these people.

Today those who apply for refugee status from abroad or in Canada must overcome numerous obstacles before being allowed to settle here. The federal government has put in place measures to intercept, in transit areas abroad such as airports, people who have fled their country without first obtaining the documents required by Canada.

Yet those who flee their country often do not have access to these documents, either because they would risk their lives if they tried to get them from the authorities that deliver these documents, or because there is no place where they can get these documents given the country's political instability or state of war.

When they finally make it to Canada, the people are faced with a cumbersome and very slow legal process that can have a severe anxiogenic effect on them. First, the refugee status claim process is complicated and also costly since the claimant needs legal counsel to prepare and present his or her claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Then, the operations of the board need to be taken into consideration, including the way the hearings are carried out, the attitude of the commissioners and the nature of the arguments presented if a claim is rejected. Also, when a claim is turned down, no appeal on the merits can be made, the claimant can be sent back to his country of origin even if his life is in jeopardy because his country is at war or is guilty of massive violations of human rights.

It is important to note that Canada no longer deports claimants to Burundi as of June 1993 and to Afghanistan and Rwanda as of April 1994. Following many representations by the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Table de concertation des organismes de Montréal, Canada stopped deporting claimants to Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire. However, Canada has found a way around its commitment by sending back to the U.S. claimants who have come here through the United States, who have no qualms about deporting them to their countries of origin.

Even when claimants are granted refugee status, after being either selected overseas or recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board, policies concerning permanent residency applications and family reunification can become a major disincentive to settle in Canada.

In short, precisely when asylum seekers are most in need of services they are not entitled to them. During the crucial period when they begin to adapt to their new environment and build their own perception of this new society, they are denied the right to be supported.

When they are destabilized the most, and when the risk of experiencing mental and physical health problems is the highest, they would be completely shut out, were it not for the human and social conscience of non governmental organizations working for the recognition of their rights. This is another issue I dealt with when Bill C-31 was debated.

I raised another issue in committee, and I remember asking a number of questions to the government, the officials and the minister. It had to do with the detention of minors and children.

Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the detention of children in a number of situations. I asked the government to recognize this protection in a clause of the bill, and not in regulations, like it intended to do. I am forced to recognize that this will not necessarily be done this time around either.

I will point out that this bill, and this is important, must in this respect correspond to a number of articles and not simply lead us back to a number of regulations.

What is basic is to have this bill correspond to the convention, and more specifically to article 37( b ) of the convention on the rights of the child, which provides that States Parties shall ensure that:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

The other aspect of the convention is article 22, which provides:

States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention—

We want this protection enshrined in the law. Naturally we will have work to do in committee, and I am sure my colleague will see that these guarantees are clearly written into the law so that Canada may be consistent with the convention it signed.

The other aspect is the whole issue of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This bill and the minister's statements clearly show a willingness to improve the claim review process by the board.

We are totally open to this willingness to improve. Looking at the current situation, it is clear that the system is not working. We do not have to watch our words because it is clear. All those of us who have had to deal with refugee claimants in our ridings know that the system is not working.

In the Montreal office of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the average time for processing claims is estimated at ten months. People have to wait an average of ten months to have their claims processed. This means that, while these people wait, terrible human tragedies unfold. The other aspect is the whole issue of claimants. Their number exceeded 7,000 in the Montreal office at the end of 1999.

Overall, we are open to this bill. We hope the willingness shown by the government will lead to positive results in the application of the act. We will certainly work to improve this bill in committee.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can boast here a bit. I have extensive experience dealing with immigrants. My constituency of Surrey Central is the largest constituency in Canada in terms of population since the constituencies are divided based on registered citizens who can vote, the electors. It has a high population of immigrants.

I went through Bill C-11 very thoroughly. I also attended the minister's briefing. The briefing was very good. I appreciate that. The minister mentioned that the bill is going to committee. We appreciate the opportunity to come forward with amendments, but I hope the minister will listen to those amendments.

Last time when we were debating the same bill in its previous form, Bill C-31, we did not have opportunity for the minister to listen to us properly and accept our amendments. Our chief critic for immigration came forward with very good amendments but they were not accepted. That is why we are in this mess and dealing with it again.

Also the minister mentioned that Canada is a leader in removing the people who do not belong in Canada. That is not true. According to the auditor general we have 15,000 people still in Canada but whose whereabouts are not known. Could the minister track those people? No, she has been unable to track those people. They do not belong in Canada but they have been consumed in the system. They are hiding but they are there somewhere and we cannot remove them.

According to the auditor general's report, 60% of visitors who come to Canada to apply for refugee status come without documents. When they board the plane they have documents because the airlines will not allow them to board without them, but when they land in Canada 60% of them land without documents. What has the minister done about it? Nothing. The auditor general's reports for the last 10 years have been critical one after the other, but the minister has chosen not to take any strong action.

During this debate we are hearing some good intentions, but we appeal to the minister to come with a proper action plan. Let her address the real hot buttons in the bill so we can make the system more efficient, effective, absolutely accountable and clear.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that all members and people who are watching the debate realize how important it is for the bill to go to committee so that the public can have its say.

Bill C-31, its predecessor, had extensive debate in the House. I know many questions were raised in the House which do not accurately reflect what is in the bill. Some are changes that have been made to the bill, and I know that the public will want to have its say. Those who are experts in immigration will want to have a chance to come to committee and to be heard.

However, there is one point that I wanted to make. Canada is a world leader in our ability to remove those who do not have the right to stay in Canada. We believe as a matter of policy and principle that we can live up to our human rights obligations, that we can abide by the rule of law in Canada and still deport those who do not belong in Canada. Those two principles, rule of law and human rights, go hand in hand. They are Canadian values and we believe that the bill would enshrine those principles.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

The purpose of the bill is to replace the Immigration Act of 1976. The current bill takes into account various facets of the standing legislation and attempts to make the legislation much stronger. While the legislation may be well intended, our analysis shows that the outcome will not serve its stated purpose. That was very eloquently mentioned by our chief immigration critic in his speech a while ago.

Before I analyze the speech in depth, I would like to tell the House and Canadians who are watching that I am a new immigrant to Canada.

The Canadian Alliance and I respect the multicultural diversity of our country. I and my party also respect the contribution made by immigrants to our great country. Canada is a country of immigrants.

Contrary to remarks made earlier by some members in the House during debate, our policies are pro-immigration. I would remind the House that approximately two to three years ago I moved a motion at the immigration committee that the discriminatory head tax should be removed. Government members in committee opposed the motion. The government has taken away the head tax on refugees. The discriminatory head tax still continues for immigrants. That shows that I and my party supported the right measures whenever we needed to.

In the past I spoke to Bill C-31 a few times, probably at all readings. In my first speech three years ago I used the analogy that we should open the front doors to immigrants but diligently monitor them. I also mentioned that we should close the back doors, including the windows and ventilators.

Today in the House the minister used my analogy. She said that she intends to open the front doors and close the back doors. However, I believe that by messing with the act she has lost the opportunity to fix it again. She has not opened the front doors, nor has she been able to close the back doors.

I will justify what I am saying. The minister has installed a third door in the House, a revolving door. The people who enter through the back door are stuck in a revolving door in Canada. People trying to immigrate to Canada through the front door are also stuck in the revolving door, as are their sponsors. There are unnecessary delays. People are harassment on medical grounds. Those people suffer various kinds of harassment.

The minister has not been able to open the front door or close the back door, but has instead installed a revolving door in the bill which will cause further problems.

I will talk about the kind of approach we should take to the immigration legislation. We need an immigration system that is faster, but we also need fairness in processing. We need a system that shows openness to newcomers but also addresses abuse of the system. We need a system that demonstrates clearly our social and humanitarian values but gives due consideration to Canada's economic interests. Therefore we need a balanced immigration and refugee legislation to meet our immigration needs.

On the weekend, at the consultations in Ottawa for the World Conference Against Racism, the statement by the immigration and refugee caucus expressed huge dissatisfaction with Bill C-11. According to the statement, of which I have a copy, the criticisms are due to issues ranging from negative language and stereotypes to discrimination against certain groups. They also mentioned the lack of protection for stateless persons and the detention and imprisonment of children.

The statement also highlighted that Bill C-11 falls short of Canada's international commitments to human rights. I was surprised when I saw that even at the World Conference Against Racism the legislation was not appreciated. It received criticism from all over, including from the auditor general.

The bill has little transparency. So many things in it are not clear. The lack of real enforcement behind the legislation will ultimately cause more trouble than the legislation it purports to replace, simply due to a lack of clarity in the bill and its reliance on a myriad of regulations.

The bill has not addressed the discriminatory head tax placed on prospective immigrants. It also has not addressed the recognition of foreign academic credentials by the immigration department, by other departments and by industry.

The recent supreme court ruling also has serious implications on any power the minister of immigration had in the past to deport people. Therefore the efficiency, effectiveness and toughness of the bill is nullified.

The bill allows extended absence from Canada. It will limit the number of humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per year. As well, the sponsorship period for new prospective immigrants has been reduced from 10 years to 3 years.

Some things in the bill are reasonably good but let us see how we can make the existing system work. The way the Liberals run our immigration system is like a clogged plumbing system in a house. It needs to be cleaned up and made workable. Improvements, additions and elimination of overlap need to take place.

Staff at immigration postings is in short supply, inadequately trained and overworked in coping with the demands. That creates unacceptable delays and mess ups.

An important aspect of the bill is security. Staff problems also create security risks, as we have seen with Mr. Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler. He landed in Canada through queue jumping and was not detected by the visa officer. There is also the example of a fellow who came to Canada with an active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1,500 people to the deadly bacteria.

Having enough well trained staff to enforce the legislation is a must in order to effectively do the job. Visa officers, our frontline defence team, need to be properly trained to identify undesirables from immigrating to Canada. They should have clarity of law and a clearer criterion for processing immigration cases. In her speech the minister mentioned front end screening. This security clearance check only applies to refugees and not to immigrant applicants. This is what we heard when department officials gave us a briefing.

There is no indication in Bill C-11 as to whether or not staff will get the proper training to enforce this security clearance check. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious fraudulent applications that cause endless paperwork for our visa officers.

There have been numerous incidents of fraud by the staff, particularly locally hired staff, in our foreign missions abroad. In certain instances they can make more money than their whole year's salary by defrauding a single immigration case. There is no punishment in the bill for the applicants or the staff committing fraud.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugees and immigrant applicants, but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how it will work.

There should be mandatory communications among the RCMP, CSIS and other international criminal investigation units. I do not see anything mentioned in the legislation about that. That is very important, particularly in the light of the question during question period about someone who came to Canada without being detected at the entry port.

The auditor general is critical in his report that this type of communication is imperative. Mr. Lai Changxing may never have got into the country if there was communication with Interpol because he was one of the most wanted persons on the Interpol list.

No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks concerning the possible risk they may pose to our country. That is a legitimate request that we have for the minister.

Immigration into Canada should be simple: either they meet the criteria or they do not. It is one of the two. There is nothing in between. Either they meet the criteria or they do not meet the criteria.

Immigration is an important aspect. We have to look into the bill very seriously. If we do not meet the immigration targets or quotas promised by the Liberals in any given year it is not a crisis. Quality must not be compromised or sacrificed for quantity. We have to be careful who are coming to Canada. Of course we welcome genuine refugees with open arms. We welcome immigrants with open arms, but it is the bad apples we are talking about that should not be entitled to come to Canada and put our citizenry at risk.

The government should be encouraging open and accountable discussion that needs to take place between CIC, Health Canada, HRDC, DFAIT, as well as the provinces and non-government immigration organizations, the NGOs. It is missing that opportunity with its proposed changes to the bill.

The criminal code would include human trafficking and smuggling as federal offences for a change. Conviction of this offence would be life imprisonment or a fine up to $1 million. Repeated offences of these crimes, such as possessing fraudulent passports, visas or any other travel documents, would also receive monetary fines and jail time. That is a good thing in the bill.

The bill proposes a very stiff penalty for human traffickers.

Individuals convicted of political crimes or other serious crimes can now be considered for risk of removal assessment. This may turn Canada into a haven for those criminals.

In regard to refugee processing, one of the key changes proposed in this bill includes referring refugees to the immigration refugee board within three working days. However, the processing time of the claim will remain the same, at 90 days or more. Our experience has shown that the UN convention relating to the status of refugees is simply too vague. The refugee definition needs to be clear.

Most Canadians know what a true refugee is and we support doing our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months or even years.

I know this from practical experience in my own constituency. I have been dealing with about 45 refugee cases where those refugees are in the revolving door I mentioned; they have been in the revolving door for seven, eight, nine or ten years. In the meantime, they cannot unite with their families, they cannot work properly and they cannot have peace of mind. They are in the revolving door. They do not see the world the way the rest of us do.

The bill also gives refugees as well as refugee applicants full charter protection, so if someone is either denied access to Canada or is refused refugee status for any reason, he or she is entitled to a full set of appeals. It is like the layers of an onion; he or she can keep peeling one layer after the other. It also means he or she is given full rights as a citizen of Canada. No other country in the world does that, not a single country in the world.

The bill of course provides an elimination of appeal for those who are serious criminals, for people who present security risks, are members of criminal organizations or war criminals, and for both fraudulent and seriously criminal applicants.

Health testing is another important ingredient for prospective immigrants when they come to Canada. There is no provision in this legislation to update the standard tests performed on all immigrant applicants, nor is there anything in the bill to increase the number of department physicians, either here in Canada or abroad in our missions. There are currently 22 department physicians, 11 here and 11 abroad. These physicians are responsible for the paperwork at the completion of the health testing. They are also responsible for contracting out to local physicians who do the actual testing.

These standard tests I am speaking of are up to 40 years old. We know how the world has changed in 40 years and how technology has evolved, particularly in the medical field, in the last 40 years. Often, local doctors abroad are not aware of the criteria that need to be met for admittance into Canada.

Foreign local doctors also need to be periodically audited to ensure that no form of malfeasance is occurring. There have been many complaints in my constituency office about the ethics of the testing physicians abroad, from bribery to all kinds of malpractice.

Currently Canada will accept applicants who do not pose a danger to the Canadian public or place a strain on the Canadian health system. A list of what conditions and ailments we will and will not accept is needed and it is not in the bill.

There is nothing to streamline medical testing for families. I have seen a number of cases in my constituency office where medical testing of all family members was not co-ordinated. They tested one member of the family, waited for three or four months and then started processing. By that time, the medical testing has expired. Then they went on to the other members. They keep on juggling the medical tests, sometimes for four years. I have one applicant in my constituency office whose family has been medically tested three times. They passed every time. Each time they had to go for medical tests it cost them money, real money in their country's local currency. It not only puts unnecessary financial strain on prospective immigrants but also causes long delays.

As I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, let me sum up.

Under discretionary powers in the bill, the dual intent of the applicant is now recognized. That means someone can be a visitor to Canada and an immigrant to Canada at the same time. I believe this will put a strain on the visitor visa. The visitor visa, which is never addressed in any of the legislation, will have serious problems.

Without a more open system and a far more communicative department, the bill will not achieve its intended goal.

There are no set standards for operation of any of our overseas offices.

The health standards, as I mentioned, have not been updated.

In the end, I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance would increase the number of staff, as I mentioned earlier.

Bill C-11 promises to modernize the selection system, but unless the amendments are accepted we will be unable to support the bill.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate.

I, like the critic for the NDP, have just taken on the responsibilities for our party for cartage of the immigration file. I must say that there is indeed a large learning curve which I have been rather proactive at trying to acquire over the last little while.

Before I begin my remarks I want to compliment the minister on the tenor of the approach she has taken so far with respect to this particular debate in seeking input and listening to the different perspectives from all members of the House.

The Conservative Party and the government will concur in a vast majority of the bill, but it is also our job in opposition to point out where the bill goes in the wrong direction, where it needs improvement and, in some cases, where sections of the bill may not be as warranted as they could be.

The tenor of the minister has been quite co-operative but I wish to send a signal that my colleague from the NDP touched on as well. I caution the minister and people within her department not to get drawn in or eclipsed by the debate surrounding immigration.

I was quite concerned when I read the very first press release out on the bill. It states that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration tabled the immigration and refugee protection act in the House of Commons today reaffirming her commitment to be tough on criminals first, while strengthening efforts to attract skilled immigrants.

I do not believe that to be the tenor of the minister on this particular issue but immigration in this country is a Canadian necessity. It is something to which we should extend our hands in welcome. We need to have more confidence in and respect for human diversity so that we do not get sucked into the debate of always having to add the word criminal in a paragraph related to immigration. I would like to flag that particular aspect.

The object of the bill is to provide an efficient framework for immigration while at the same time ensuring that Canada, being the society that we are, remains a safe haven for refugees who are escaping persecution for a myriad of reasons. That is our job, our human responsibility, as a responsible society.

Today I am going to talk about areas in which the bill progressively steps ahead with measures that are great additions to the country's immigration and refugee protection policy. I would also like to discuss some problems that are not part of the bill which should be included. They are problems of status quo which the bill does not necessarily resolve.

I would like to touch on the refugee issue. I refer to the Singh decision of 1985. We as a society established for the first time that we needed to have immigration and refugee board so individuals could make oral presentations that could have an effect on their lives. It was a step in the right direction. Before that decision, I am sad to say that we made those determinations based quite often on files and paper. At the end of the day when it comes to refugees, we are actually dealing with people. That is what this particular aspect is about.

We know that immigration is a demographic necessity for Canada. We must continue to improve the framework which administers this very important aspect of our society. The importance of Bill C-11 has exponentially increased due to such things as the fact that as Canadians we are human resource hungry.

Baby boomers are very well aware of the fact that not too long from now that they will begin to retire en masse. We are going to need to attract many individuals in order to address that demographic shift in our economy so that our society and our country can continue to grow in a manner that is necessary.

The key foundation of Canada's program is that it is colour blind. We have access points across the world to enable immigration and refugee protection. That is the noble goal of this egalitarian policy but the administrative reality is quite different.

I would like to point this fact out to the minister. Of all the offices that Canada has abroad, there are very few in regions where we take in most of our immigrants and refugees. They are in countries such as Africa, India, the Philippines, China and even Hong Kong. There are offices in big cities like Manila, Bangkok, Beijing, Shanghai and New Delhi. There are offices in African cities like Nairobi or Pretoria, despite the fact that there are over 30 countries in Africa.

How can we expect thousands of people to make their way across borders to a few places where Canada actually has an office? We cannot simply state that we have a colour blind system, if we do not make access to the system much more universal. Canada needs more offices and access points for immigrants, now. The minister needs those resources in order to do just that.

Not only do we have few offices in areas swamped with immigrants and refugees but those that do exist are swamped. The auditor general in his April 2000 report said:

We found that immigration offices abroad are overtasked. They have much difficulty in coping with the volumes of work and responsibilities assigned to them. Immigration levels set by the government not met and applicants are waiting longer and longer for the applications to be finalized.

I can point out another red book promise. The other day we voted down a red book promise but I will try to keep this on the straight and narrow for this particular debate. This red book promise states:

A new Liberal government will move Canada's immigration levels closer to 1% of the population each year and ensure that sufficient resources are available to help families settle properly in Canada.

I hope the minister appreciates the favour I am doing for her in this speech. The political heat that she is taking at this moment is clearly an indication that the minister does not have the financial resources abroad or domestically in order for her to carry out her mandate, as required and as outlined by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is always very willing to help the Liberal Party and show it the way as we did with free trade and other initiatives in that regard.

Latest figures show that around 225,000 immigrants or refugees landed in the year 2000, with expectations of a slight increase for the upcoming year.

The auditor general also pointed out one deficiency which should be highlighted. The audit revealed:

—significant weaknesses in the management of medical assessments or prospective immigrants. Since our last audit in 1990, the Department of Health Canada have been unable to take a position on whether changes to standards for medical examinations are required to determine if an applicant poses a danger to public health and safety, or could place excessive demand on health care systems.

During the context of debate, we are going to have to address this particular issue in terms of what tests, what diseases and what maladies should or should not be tested for. It is imperative that we bring this forth and look at this in the context of the year 2001. The fact is we are really using a framework that is essentially a quarter of a century old.

I raise this particular issue because I know the government is going to be somewhat uncomfortable with the fact. The Progressive Conservative Party and a number of opposition parties find it very draconian that the government still has its $975 entrance feel. I hate the term, but like it or not, this is still a head tax on new Canadians. If this $975 were an administrative fee, it would be in a stand alone account. It would be utilized as a servicing account to provide for language training and other things which new Canadians need assistance with. If money goes into general revenues and is not set aside, by definition it is a head tax.

Another aspect which I would like to speak about is the issue of credentials. However, to be honest I believe this is outside the purview of Bill C-11. I applaud the government in its approach to this. It has gone away from an occupation based criteria in attracting economic immigrants to a skill based scenario. Skills need to be transferable in the context of a modern economy. That is a step in the right direction.

I would ask the minister to work in collaboration with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the provinces to ensure that the credit agents, whether they be from engineering, or medical or other professional designations, have some way of being integrated into our Canadian economy. That way immigrants will have a larger capacity to make more of an impact right from the start. They will be able to contribute to the growth of this great nation.

I would like to raise a concern that the Progressive Conservative Party has with respect to division 4, clause 36(3)(b) of the bill which states “inadmissibility cannot be based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been granted”. How can we judge if it is a valid pardon. What about violent crimes? What about situations where an individual has been pardoned within some form of regime for consistent and habitual spousal abuse or something of that kind?

Clearly, the minister would have the flexibility and the purview to block that particular issue because she could conceive that the individual could be of a violent nature and a harm to Canadian society.

I would like to see during the course of committee an amendment or something with respect to the pardon. If an individual has been pardoned for a serious or violent crime, he or she should go through a higher degree of scrutiny than is outlined in the bill. This is something the minister should consider as we debate this.

Another clause I am concerned with, although I think the government is in the right direction in its approach, is a when foreign national, other than a permanent resident, is inadmissible on grounds that another family member is inadmissible. I am talking about a situation where an individual has lied or misrepresented the facts in some shape or form and that individual was deemed to be inadmissible and sent back to his or her country of origin.

Let us envision this situation. As it is in the bill right now, family members, whether they be a child or a spouse, would be deemed inadmissible as well. Also, there might be a situation where a 20 year old has in Canada for quite some time. However, after a long time we find out that one of his or her parents should not have been granted admissibility into Canada. That 20 year old could be sent back to the country of origin. That child could have lived here all his or her life. We are concerned about that possible connector. We think that would be wrong.

I give credit to the minister and her department in that there is less room in this bill for regulations compared to the previous attempt in Bill C-31. There is a fair amount of legislative license afforded to the minister. We would like to be able to find out a little more about the regulatory regime before we have a blind faith in the bill. The minister has been quite genuine in that she would share that regulatory regime with us. We will clearly take her at her word. We will work in conjunction with the regulations and the bill. It is a step in the right direction.

We applaud the government's initiatives with respect to stopping multiple claims, where foreign nationals, other than the permanent residents, must answer truthfully all questions put to them and produce all documentation that the officer reasonably requires. This particular initiative is something that deserves some accolades as well.

Another house cleaning item in the bill, which the Progressive Conservative Party firmly supports, is the government would update the statute for same sex partners. That is a step in the right direction and is in the context of the modern, open and tolerant society.

Bill C-11 goes on to conclude that people would be inadmissible if they lie or omit information, or if they commit an act referred to in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, or if they are convicted of a crime or an offence outside of Canada which would be punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment in Canada. Some individuals who may actually consider that particular approach to be draconian. At the end of the day, if a person has been sentenced to a crime of that nature, it is clearly in the purview of the Canadian government to take appropriate steps and deport that individual immediately.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's remarks and the fact that she did stay to listen to all of the critics speak about Bill C-11.

As we were dealing with Bill C-31, the predecessor to Bill C-11, we were often told that the issues we raised would be dealt with in the regulations and that we should not be concerned because we would probably get satisfaction on our issues. We never did get a chance to get to that stage with Bill C-31. In a sense we were being asked to buy a pig in a poke because we had no real assurance or any guarantee that the issue would be dealt with.

If what the minister says is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, would she table the draft regulations now at this early stage of Bill C-11 so that we might have a more informed review of them rather than what happened to us with Bill C-31?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House listening very carefully to the critics from the opposition parties. I will start by saying that while I do not agree with everything that was said, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of the presentations and I am looking forward to answering their questions and to being at committee for a full review.

The predecessor to Bill C-11, Bill C-31, was referred to committee last June but it did not have the kind of full public debate and hearing at committee, as members know, because of the election call. We had the opportunity, over the course of the summer and the fall, to give careful consideration to briefs received by the department and by my office.

I believe Bill C-11, which is before the House today, responds at great length to many of the issues and concerns that were raised regarding the original immigration and refugee protection legislation.

Having listened to my very thoughtful critics, I believe there are a number of areas, which they have addressed, that are actually addressed in the bill, or which could and would be addressed by the regulatory package that would accompany the bill.

For those people who are unaware of parliamentary procedure, it is important to know that the formal regulation making process does not begin until after the bill is enacted. However, I have made a commitment, as I did with the previous legislation, that we would have a discussion paper at the committee so that we could start to discuss what the regulations would look like and how they would inform the debate and the policies enshrined in this framework legislation which is so important.

I thank my critics for their thoughtful comments. I look forward to debate at committee. I wanted to take this opportunity during questions and comments to say how much I appreciate everything that they have had to say and look forward to further discussion at committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by complimenting the member for Winnipeg North Centre for an excellent first speech in her new critic area as the NDP caucus critic for citizenship and immigration.

She very accurately laid out some of the concerns we in the NDP have about Bill C-11, not just about content but, as she said, in tone and about the overall impression we are sending by a bill that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with enforcement.

In fact, we have been critical for years. The Liberal government seems to be yielding to the voices of those who are against immigration, period. It is yielding by putting a disproportionate allocation of energy and resources to keeping people out of the country or to catching people who may have been sneaking into the country rather than promoting Canada as a destination for more immigration.

It is the clear point of view of the NDP caucus that we welcome immigration. We recognize immigration as an engine for economic growth. In fact, in areas like the ridings of Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North Centre we feel we are not getting our fair share of new Canadians. By ratio and proportion, Manitoba should in fact be getting 8,000 to 10,000 new immigrants per year as our share of the overall number of people who come to Canada. We are actually getting less than one half of that.

Certainly in our ridings and in our world view we welcome more new Canadians. We would hope that the government would use the introduction of a new immigration bill to send that message to the world: that Canada has an open door policy and we welcome new immigrants and the contributions they can make.

We are critical as well of the tone of the bill, which seems to concentrate on welcoming people with specific skills to fill specific skills shortages. In other words, it is immigration driven by the labour market. This illustrates a fundamental shift in policy over the years. This never used to be the case. We would invite immigrants to come to our country and, regardless of their skills or literacy levels, they could begin to make a contribution the very day they got here by being active consumers and purchasing goods. Then they could make the contribution they were able to make as they grew with our economy.

Today it is amazing how many entrepreneurs, business people and people who have made enormous contributions started from those humble roots. I believe that by being too selective not only are we limiting the overall numbers of people we are welcoming, but we may be missing a lot of awfully good talent. I am fond of reminding the people from the Canadian Alliance that Einstein was a refugee. A lot of skilled and qualified people are. Our own Governor General was a refugee. Members of my staff were refugees. No one asked them what their post-secondary education was before they were welcomed here. They started making a contribution when they arrived on these shores.

We were hoping that Bill C-11 would be fundamentally different from the previous Bill C-31. We did hear a number of quality presentations at the committee stage where shortcomings of Bill C-31 were cited. The minister took note and we thought that we had pretty broad agreement, at least on some of the issues.

To be fair, one of the things that we would have moved as an amendment was incorporated into the new bill, that is, considering parents as part of the family class. Family unification is one of the three legs of immigration policy in this country. We certainly welcome that change within the bill and not just within the regulations.

There are other things that we do not see addressed. We pointed out repeatedly the aspects of the bill that would bar entry to any person who had been convicted of a serious crime. By definition, a serious crime is one that is punishable by 10 years in prison or if a person serves two years or more of a penalty of up to 10 years. A person who has been convicted of a crime like that in their country of origin would never be allowed entry into this country. We pointed out the anomaly, in that somebody like Nelson Mandela would have been barred from entering this country as a refugee.

We have to recognize that some people who have been branded criminals in their own country are political dissidents who are standing up for the rights and principles that we would be proud to have in our own country. We should be recognizing the fact that many of the migrants in today's world are decent people who were forced into activities that may be considered criminal in that country. There is no denying that Nelson Mandela was part of an armed insurrection to overthrow a despotic state. That is just one example.

The increased penalties and the absolute zero tolerance rule for anybody who is engaging in any kind of trafficking of human beings can also be unfair. Canada is proud of its history with the underground railroad. What was that if not the trafficking and smuggling of people from persecution into freedom? The people who hid Anne Frank in their attic would have been guilty of taking part in the illegal trafficking and movement of people.

We have to recognize that there are political situations in the world today where desperate people are taking desperate measures to seek asylum and freedom. We do not see the protection in the bill where we recognize the realities of many places in the world.

We believe that Bill C-11 should have taken steps to change the previous Bill C-31 and to modify other aspects. It was pointed out by a number of people who made presentations to the committee that risk assessments should be conducted by CIC officials rather than the Immigration and Refugee Board. We fail to see that recommendation incorporated into Bill C-11 even though we thought there was broad consensus that it would be an improvement.

We also point out that Bill C-11 should have responded to the numerous presentations that we heard which would spell out specifically that we do adhere to the United Nations convention against torture and that under no circumstances would we ever send anyone back to a situation where they would face torture. When challenged at the committee stage, where officials came and made representations, as to whether they could point out a single other country in the world, which is signatory to the UN convention against torture, that even contemplates the idea of sending people back to where they may face torture, they were unable to answer. They said that they could not think of a single example where that was the case. Again, we were hoping that Bill C-11 would have reflected that at least.

Another amendment we would have made dealt with the UN convention on the rights of the child. As was pointed out in the speech by the member from the Bloc Quebecois, we fall short of the language called for in the UN convention. It says that the rights of the child must be the primary consideration for any decisions made on the future of the child. We say that the UN convention on the rights of the child must be of principal consideration. Not being a lawyer I do not know how that would hold up when we compare the absolute primary consideration versus a principal consideration. I think it is far weaker. I do not know why we would hesitate to use the strongest of language in that laudable concept.

I want to share the concerns voiced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. We do not want to pander to the xenophobia that we saw in this country, where it raised its ugly head just 18 months ago when the Chinese boat people landed on the shores of British Columbia. At that time we saw the Canadian Alliance members stand up and call for Canada to not follow through with the supreme court's decision on the rights of a refugee, which was that when they placed a foot in Canada, they should be given a hearing.

Members of the Canadian Alliance held a press conference saying that the refugees should be put on a boat and sent back to where they came from. They said that we should not waste money on jail time or feeding these people while they waited for their hearing. They wanted to put them on that leaky tub and did not care if it sank. That was the kind of hysteria we saw whipped up by irresponsible people in the Reform Party or Alliance Party, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was making reference to.

We do not want policy shaped by xenophobic hysteria whipped up by people who are simply against immigration period.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre who has served as the NDP critic for immigration and citizenship over the past year. He has played a very important role in providing insight into the forerunner of the bill. He will continue to play a role in ensuring that we get the best possible legislation out of this process.

I am very proud to be here today as the new NDP critic for immigration and citizenship. I have much to learn as we begin this process. I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and other colleagues in the House will understand if I make any errors of fact, or if I have not clearly understood all of the issues at hand. I trust that there will be understanding and patience as we work on it together.

I want to indicate what drives me and what perspective I bring to this debate. It is a perspective that I share very much with the member for Winnipeg Centre partly, because of the kinds of constituencies we represent. It is fair to say, if we look at the ridings of Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North Centre, that together we represent two of the probably most diverse areas in the country with a very high number of ethnocultural groups represented in our communities.

Winnipeg North Centre has an incredible diversity of ethnocultural groups. It is an area with very strong multicultural roots that has always welcomed immigrants from every continent. Historically it experienced a large influx of people of Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish and German heritage. More recently immigrants have come in large numbers from the Philippines, India, Portugal and from many Asian, Latin American, African and Eastern European countries.

My constituency is home to many ethnocultural groups, many multicultural organizations, and many services involved in the preservation and the celebration of our rich and diverse heritage.

Together, those kinds of contributions, that kind of makeup, make for a very active, very vibrant community working to ensure an understanding of the differences among us and a respect for one another. There are many churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, service groups and volunteer associations, all devoted to immigrant settlement, refugee sponsorship and anti-racism programs. I very much value the contributions of those organizations to my community and I value what they have taught me in terms of understanding the broad parameters of policies pertaining to citizenship and immigration.

In the course of this debate and the committee meetings to follow, I hope I will be able to reflect and represent the values of my constituents, which I believe are the values of Canadians everywhere. Having listened carefully to the critic for the Alliance, who was very careful in his choice of words around the policy issue, I would dare to say that if there is one thing that unites us in the House today it is that we all very much believe in the value of multiculturalism in the country today. We all want to continue the tradition that Canada has established for itself around the world in terms of being a country that is open to new citizens and that operates on the basis of humanitarian principles, offering refuge for people seeking asylum, for people in need and for people wanting to be reunited with family.

I also bring to this debate a personal conviction from my own background. Many of us in the Chamber today have a makeup of many ethnocultural backgrounds, each and every one of us. In my own case, I am proud to say that my mother is Dutch, married to a Ukrainian Canadian, and that I am married to an Amish Mennonite. I say that because for me it is part of who I am and part of what I bring to this debate and what I hope to transmit to other members in the Chamber. It is something I value and cherish.

I raise this also because I get concerned when I hear members of the media or even members of the House suggesting that we have to be watchful and mindful of all the different pockets of ethnocultural groups in the country today because that can lead to a patchwork of groups across the country and take away from the goal of national unity.

I look at it from another perspective. I think this is where my colleague, the critic from the Alliance, and I will have to disagree. I tend to believe that the richness of my background and of so many other Canadians in terms of ethnocultural diversity is a positive, an added benefit, something to be celebrated, not worried about. In fact I feel I am doubly endowed as a Canadian with the kind of background I have.

Rather than worrying about pockets of ethnocultural groups, I think we need to reflect on the value of diversity. We then need to work to ensure that our policies encourage the celebration of that diversity so that we, as a nation, gain strength from it and are able to meet challenges we would not otherwise be able to meet.

I say all of that because my biggest worry about Bill C-11 is the same worry that my colleague for Winnipeg Centre raised with respect to Bill C-31, that is, it seems to be more preoccupied with keeping people out of the country and protecting Canada from the world as opposed to reuniting families here in this country and ensuring that we respect our humanitarian traditions.

I know some changes have been made by the minister. I know she has made some improvements to the bill based on suggestions by members of the House and representations from various groups, but there is an overriding concern that we all share, at least those of us in the NDP caucus, about the tone and tenor of the bill and its focus on protecting Canada from the world as opposed to reuniting families in Canada today.

Sometimes that happens, in fact, when members in the House, as has happened quite regularly with the Alliance, tend to focus on the exceptions to the rule, on those few examples where a criminal element has entered our society or where people may have brought a disease into this country, as opposed to looking at the benefits from the thousands and thousands of immigrants and refugees who have helped to make this country what it is today.

Because of that focus and that kind of dominant thrust the minister is facing daily from the Alliance and other extreme elements in our society today, I worry that we will in fact lose sight of the important humanitarian role Canada has played on the world stage and of the extent to which those who have received sanctuary have contributed to our country's economic, social and cultural development.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I have only two minutes left to give some opening remarks on the bill. I do want to say that there are a number of concerns which have to be addressed in the process surrounding the bill. I hope the committee process for receiving the bill will in fact be open to the many organizations and groups that have great knowledge and enormous interest and expertise in this area.

The NDP will be looking for some answers on issues not addressed by the bill. For example, there is the whole question of visitors' visas, an issue we deal with on a daily basis in our constituency offices. There is the issue of the ongoing head tax. Although the government has lifted it in regard to refugees, it still is an ongoing concern in terms of it being a barrier to people who want to come to Canada and settle here.

We will be raising concerns about the live-in caregiver program. We will be raising concerns about the adherence of this country to the Geneva convention around refugees in ensuring that our country provides the appropriate travel documentation for and acceptance of refugees here in Canada.

We will be raising concerns about the family class issue, acknowledging that the minister has moved parents into this group. This is a concern we have raised before and we appreciate the change. However, given the need in this country for a significant increase in immigrants, we still wonder why this government is not looking at a broader definition of family class and why we are not taking more steps to reduce the barriers to immigrants and refugees, to ensure that in fact this country is respectful of our past and is prepared to celebrate the diversity that makes it so strong.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the citizenship and immigration critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise at second reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

This bill, introduced for first reading on February 21, is almost identical to Bill C-31, which was introduced in March 2000, in the previous parliament.

I will come back later on to the differences between Bill C-31 and Bill C-11 now before the House.

The current immigration act came into effect in 1976 and has been amended about thirty times since then. It is therefore important to undertake an indepth review of the legislation in order to meet the needs of immigrants and refugees in the 21st century.

In early February, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled in the House of Commons her department's projections for the levels of immigration to Canada in 2001 and 2002.

A brief review of the figures for the last 20 years shows that 150,000 applications for immigration were approved in 1980. In the next five years, the number of landed immigrants dropped. In 1985, there were less than 100,000 immigrants. Starting in 1986, the number increased, until it reached an all time high in 1992, with well over 200,000 immigrants. In the following years, the number decreased to fewer than 175,000 people.

According to the department's estimates, Canada will receive 200,000 to 225,000 immigrants and refugees in 2001, nearly 18% of whom will settle in Quebec. For 2002, the estimates are increased by some 10,000.

Canada and Quebec are welcoming nations. The bill before us should be aimed at establishing a fair and equitable framework to meet the needs of newcomers as humanely as possible, whether they are immigrants or refugees, in accordance with international conventions and with the values that are important to both Canadians and Quebecers.

With free trade, with the break up of political structures, like in Eastern Europe for example, with serious conflicts raging in Asia, Africa and Europe and with the globalization of communications, more and more people will be tempted if not forced to embark on the adventure of trying to starting a new life in a new country.

This new legislation should open the door so they can contribute to the enrichment of the community of which they will become part. Their skills, their experience and their personal qualities are all essential to the development of both Canada and Quebec as nations.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However, we will have to look at this bill more closely in committee because certain aspects of it need to be changed.

As was the case with its predecessor, Bill C-31, the main thrust of Bill C-11 is harshness towards illegal immigrants. Indeed, a large part of the bill puts the emphasis on closing the door to illegal immigrants, strengthening the measures designed to fight fraud, false statements and abuse, prohibiting criminals and those who present a security risk from entering Canada, and imposing harsher penalties.

At first glance, this bill, as drafted, seems to suggest that Canada has been invaded by all kinds of criminals and that the door is too wide open.

The Bloc Quebecois does not share that view, which can only serve to reinforce prejudice against refugees and immigrants.

With this bill, the minister is seeking among other things to respond to a strong current of public opinion in the United States which feels that Canada has become a kind of Club Med for terrorists.

Among the measures aimed at discouraging illegal border crossings, the bill includes the imposition of heavy penalties, namely fines of up to $1 million and a life sentence for human traffickers and smugglers.

Revision of the act, as well as cracking down on illegals, is also intended—and this is good news—to lighten the load on a system that does not allow Canada to achieve its annual objective of 300,000 newcomers.

At this time, there are more than 400,000 people within Canada and elsewhere who are awaiting word on whether they will be able to settle in Canada. Canada is a popular destination. So, there is a problem with delays and I am sure that many members of this House could provide examples in their own ridings.

Speeding up the refugee determination process is one of the most positive measures contained in this bill. Indeed, the minister has indicated that, from now on, it will take 72 hours instead of 3 months—this is nothing short of extraordinary—for a refugee claim to be filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board, which will have to bring down its decision within six to nine months.

The minister also pointed out that her bill would significantly streamline refugee claim processing in order to reduce the maximum time frame from five to two years.

New measures will also be put in place to modernize the procedure for selecting skilled immigrant workers and temporary workers. It must be said that these measures will never apply in Quebec, since under the Canada-Quebec agreement of 1991, Quebec selects its own economic immigrants.

Refugee selection and family reunification remain under federal jurisdiction. It is time, however, the law explicitly recognized Quebec's jurisdiction. In this regard, section 10 of the current law is very weak.

As a signatory to international human rights documents, Canada has obligations as well with respect to the rights of non citizens. The new bill must take the standards established in these texts into account. Unfortunately, and although it refers to them, the bill does not incorporate the relevant texts.

There are three international conventions. The first, the 1959 convention relating to the status of refugees, provides that the mandate of the high commissioner for refugees to protect refugees falls as well to the countries signing the convention, including Canada.

The basic instrument, indeed the cornerstone of the international refugee protection system, is respect for the principle of non return recognized by the countries and enshrined in article 33, which provides that “No Contracting State shall expel or return, refouler, a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The bill currently before the House should also include sexual orientation, specifically, as grounds.

Subclause 97(1)( a ) of the bill refers to the convention against torture and provides for the protection of persons threatened with torture, as defined in article 1 of the convention. However, the bill does not fully respect article 3 of the convention, which prohibits the return of any individual to face torture. In fact, the present bill does not prohibit returning people deemed inadmissible for reasons of serious criminality and security.

Article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child requires governments to give the child's best interest primary consideration in all actions that concern him or her. Bill C-11 proposes that the best interest of the child be taken into account.

This bill provides for the automatic detention of any person entering Canada as part of an organized operation. The previous bill gave no special status to refugee status claimants who were minors. Under Bill C-11, a minor child shall be detained only as a measure of last resort.

I have many more quotes concerning the rights of children that I would love to read to the House, but since I have several pages left in my speech, I will not do it. However, I would be more than glad to provide them to any member interested.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently published a report on the Canadian refugee determination system. Bill C-11 before us today addresses two of the report's recommendations by linking the appeal on the merits for refugee status claimants to the pre-removal risk assessment part of the decision taken by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

However, there are many other recommendations which the bill completely fails to address and which aggravate the existing situation. For instance, the report recommends that the decision as to admissibility should be the responsibility of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The bill widens the categories of people whose claims will be deemed inadmissible and who will therefore never have an opportunity to be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The Bloc Quebecois is particularly concerned by the fact that the bill provides for the automatic detention of any person who arrives in Canada in the context of an operation organized by traffickers.

The Bloc criticized Bill C-31 because it did not grant any special status to refugee claimants who are minors, in spite of the fact that the UNHCR recently pointed out to Immigration Canada that it was contrary to the international rules governing the detention of young refugees, except in certain cases and for very short periods of time.

The minister seems to have heard the message since Bill C-11 provides for the detention of young refugees only as a last resort. However, the notion of “last resort” has yet to be defined.

In addition to illegal immigration, the bill mentions three main reasons for detention, namely the risk that the person will flee the country, the fact that the person may be a threat to public security, or cases where it is not possible to establish the person's identity. These three reasons are already included in the current act. However, in several respects, the bill broadens the scope of the provisions on detention.

The bill gives new powers to immigration officers to detain individuals at points of entry for purposes of “administrative expediency”. The officers may also detain people when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are inadmissible on grounds of security or on grounds of human rights violations. One might wonder whether this addition of new grounds for detention based on expediency and suspicion is not a cause for concern. It seems to us that the grounds of danger to the public and the risk of failure to appear already cover all the situations in which detention is necessary.

The bill also broadens the provisions with respect to detention on grounds of identity. Any requirement to provide proof of identity poses a serious obstacle for many refugees. In fact, these people are often forced to flee without their papers because their identity is precisely what exposes them to persecution.

At the present time, detentions for lack of identification can only take place at entry points. With this bill, a person will now be able to be detained within the framework of any procedure covered by the law if he or she does not establish identity.

This means, for instance, that refugee claimants could be detained if they do not establish their identity at the hearing to determine refugee status.

In Bill C-11, what are presently two distinct decisions, refugee status determination and review of the risk of removal, will be a single decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board. For every claim for refugee protection, and every application for examination of risk of removal, the board will decide whether the claimant is a convention refugee, whether the claimant is a person in need of protection, that is to say a person who would be subject to a danger of torture in their country of origin and, finally, whether the claimant is a member of a class of persons whose need for protection is recognized through regulations.

It should be noted that the exception clauses in the convention on refugees apply to refugees in the meaning of the convention, and to persons in need of protection. These exceptions are aimed at criminals, those who have committed serious common law crimes in another country and anyone convicted of actions contrary to the goals and principles of the United Nations.

The centralization of decision making within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will no doubt make for a more effective and rapid process.

Reference to the convention against torture is new and significant. We should note, however, that the definition of protected person contained in the bill is not absolutely consistent with the provisions of the convention against torture, which, unlike the convention on the status of refugees, contains no exclusion clause. Article 3 of the convention against torture prohibits the return of any person who may be subject to torture, regardless of what the person may have done in the past or may do in the future.

According to the bill and consistent with the situation currently, only claims for refugee status approved by citizenship and immigration may be heard. However, the bill provides that an examination of an applicant's criminal records potentially leading to an inadmissible claim will now be conducted on entry into the country and no longer at the end of the process, once the claimant has been given refugee status. The bill also expands the categories of persons whose claims are deemed unacceptable, which means they will not be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a hearing.

At the moment, the claims are inadmissible only for reasons of criminality and if the minister issues a certificate of public danger. Now, claims will be considered inadmissible if the claimant has been found guilty in Canada of a crime punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years and for which a sentence of at least two years was imposed. A claimant will also be ruled ineligible if he has been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an act of parliament that may be punished by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

It is important to point out that automatically excluding persons convicted of offences outside Canada poses a threat to refugees. Too often, the criminal justice system is used as a means of persecution. It is not unusual for victims of persecution to be sentenced on the basis of false accusations manufactured in order to convict them of crimes they did not commit.

Under the bill, applications for protection will be heard by the refugee protection division. Applicants will have a hearing before a single board member, whereas at present a panel of two hears the case. Appeals against a decision by the refugee protection division may be submitted to the new refugee appeal division by the applicant or the minister. This division will not hold a hearing, but will base its decision on written submissions. We also deplore that this bill does not include any change to the appointment process of board members.

Over the past several years, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly criticized the Liberals for making political appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We believe it is essential that any change in the asylum claim process should seek to guarantee the integrity of the refugee status determination system.

In order to achieve that, it is critical to establish a transparent process to appoint and replace IRB members, so as to ensure full impartiality and selection based on the candidates' qualifications and professional experience, and not, as is often the case now, on their political affiliation. Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a single member, it becomes even more important and in fact essential that all the decision makers have the highest qualifications.

The introduction of appeals on the merits addresses one of the fundamental weaknesses of the present refugee determination system. The absence of an appeal mechanism was very recently criticized by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights in its report on the Canadian refugee determination system. It should be noted, however, that the proposed appeal provides only limited protection to refugee claimants because it is based on written submissions only.

A large percentage of claims are ruled ineligible on grounds of credibility. It will therefore be extremely difficult to challenge such rulings of non-credibility in writing. Furthermore, written submissions also raise the problem of claimants without representation, which is often the case because of the inadequacy of legal aid.

The bill provides no guarantee of the independence of the refugee appeal division or of the greater expertise of its members with respect to refugee determination. If an appeal is to adequately correct the errors of the first level, the appeal division must obviously be a distinct and higher level.

In fact, it seems hard to guarantee the impartiality or appearance of impartiality of the process when the members of the appeal division are called upon to judge decisions made by their own colleagues in the section of first instance. Such a structure, in which members of the division are required to review themselves, does not imply a critical eye and cannot therefore in our opinion present the necessary guarantees of independence.

The Bloc Quebecois regrets the harsh tone used by the government in presenting this bill and in the related public announcements. The government's approach seems designed to reassure the Canadian right and strengthen prejudice against refugees and immigrants. It is thus encouraging division and fanning the flames of xenophobia and racism in society.

In recent years the Bloc Quebecois has said on several occasions that Canada's refugee determination system should have two essential features: it must be quick and fair to a person who is legitimately seeking asylum and it must deter those who overburden the system with unjustified claims.

This slowness in processing claims results in unacceptable human tragedies and puts people and families in extremely difficult situations.

For example, the average time to process a claim at the IRB's Montreal office is 10 months. Moreover, at the end of December 1999, there were over 7,000 asylum seekers in Montreal alone who were waiting for a hearing. That is one third of all cases in Canada.

We also believe that the new bill on immigration does not reflect explicitly enough the actual scope of all the powers gained by Quebec in this area. According to Quebec's former minister of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault:

The act will have to include firm commitments in this regard. Provisions will have to be added to the current bill to ensure, among other things, the respect of Quebec's powers regarding the selection of immigrant workers or the maintaining of a distinct program for immigrant investors.

The bill will therefore have to contain a specific provision to this effect. In addition to the issue of Quebec's jurisdiction, it is important to mention that, although the bill proposes amendments with respect to refugee claims, nowhere does Ottawa undertake to assume the costs resulting from its handling of those claims.

In fact, if the federal government believes in the effectiveness of the measures proposed in its bill, it should be able to undertake to assume these costs, and to do so until those affected have been granted refugee status, have been granted permanent residence, or have left the country.

Last year, in February, it will be recalled, Quebec joined with Ontario and British Columbia in criticizing the federal government's handing of the movement of asylum seekers, calling for major changes, and demanding that the federal government, which is responsible for the entire refugee determination process, assume all the costs of providing services to these individuals, including social assistance, legal aid, education and so forth.

I would remind members that, right now, it is costing Quebec over $100 million annually to look after people waiting for a ruling from the federal government's Immigration and Refugee Board.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is greatly concerned by the fact that many crucial points are relegated to the regulations rather than being part of the bill itself. This means that the government is basically excluding these rules from the scrutiny of the House. This also opens the door to many changes, at the whim of the government, or because of public pressure or discontent with a court decision.

At second reading stage, the Bloc is supporting the principle of this bill. However, a lot remains to be done. We sincerely hope that, instead of just rubberstamping the legislation, the Liberal government will consider improvements to it, at committee stage, in order to meet the needs of those who have chosen to settle here to build a better life for themselves.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the second reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. The bill is really the reintroduction of Bill C-31 which died on the order paper with the call of the last election.

As this is my first lengthy speech in the 37th parliament, I thank the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River for returning me to the House. Congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the chair and belated congratulations to all members of the House. I welcome my two deputy critics who will assist me in this portfolio, the new member for Blackstrap and the member for Surrey Central.

I will outline to our viewers how I intend to use up the next 40 minutes in debating Bill C-11. I will touch on the Canadian Alliance immigration policy, discuss why immigration is everybody's business, examine the current problems that are daily encountered, review the harsh words of the auditor general, and look at what needs to be done to improve the system.

Before I begin I want to tell the House how privileged I am to be able to stand in the House in 2001 to debate the subject of immigration. Not only am I proud to represent the Canadian Alliance Party. I am proud to say that I am an immigrant to this country.

My grandfather was a Chinese railway worker who arrived here in the late 1800s. My father came in 1922, a year before the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which incidentally happened right here in the House of Commons. The Chinese Exclusion Act refused the entry of Chinese immigrants for the next 24 years. The act was repealed in 1947.

I immigrated to Canada in 1955 as a seven year old. I do not believe for one minute that my grandfather would ever have envisioned that some day his grandson in the future would be standing in the House of Commons debating immigration legislation. I am doubly honoured to rise in the House today.

It is most unfortunate that a minister of the crown during the last federal election made some disparaging remarks about the Canadian Alliance. It was possible that these remarks were made in the heat of battle. We all do that from time to time. Unfortunately these remarks still irritate over three million Canadians who voted for the Canadian Alliance Party. I hope I am correct in saying that the minister did not mean what she said. I only wish the minister would do the right thing to resolve this issue.

The Canadian Alliance Party is pro-immigration. I will read our policy statements on immigration from the past election. Canadian Alliance promised to welcome new Canadians and at the same time keep out the criminals. Canada is a nation of immigrants. We have always been enriched by new arrivals to our shores. A Canadian Alliance government would maintain the current level of immigration. We would make it easier for immigrants who possess advanced skills and training to enter Canada, and we would make the family reunification process truly responsive.

Canadians are also angered by policies which have let dangerous criminals into our country and unscrupulous human smugglers who bring in illegal migrants, jumping the queue and hurting the integrity of the system. The Canadian Alliance immigration policy would accommodate legitimate immigrants and their families who seek to contribute to Canada, while locking it tight to those who would abuse the system.

Immigration is the story of Canada. Immigrants have been coming to Canada since Cartier and Champlain. Canada was built on the backs of the immigrants who came here from around the world. We are fortunate that after the 1900s, Canada adopted a somewhat open door policy to immigration.

Yes, as a country we have had our bleak moments, starting with the aboriginals, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Jews, the Ukrainians and the blacks. Despite all these bleak moments in history, we have fared quite well. Certainly over the last 50 years Canada has become an example to the world. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness. We have shown the world that people from around the world can live and work together under one tent.

We should always see ourselves as Canadians first before our country of origin. Otherwise we will become a patchwork of ethnic communities, which will weaken our resolve as a nation. I agree with the author John Boyko who in his book entitled Last Steps to Freedom wrote:

Unity should be the goal of diversity rather than diversity existing as an end into itself.

In my opinion this is basically the weak link in Canada's multicultural initiative.

I applaud the member for Kitchener—Waterloo for his principal stand during the 36th parliament in his advocacy for those of us who are Canadians by choice in the citizenship act debate. There is no doubt the House will hear more from the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo when we debate Canadian citizenship in the future.

Canada needs to attract the cream of the crop around the world. In today's global economy, all countries are competing for skilled labour.

Canada's only option for population growth is through immigration. Smart immigration policies will create the opportunities for the country to create wealth. We need to keep better track of the different groups to determine how they are doing in the country, both in the short and long term.

The Canadian Alliance believes there needs to be a balance between access to Canada and security of our country from the world's criminals and terrorists.

We need to emphasize integration into Canadian society for both immigrants and refugees. The act mentions integration but does not specify how it is to be carried out. Canada has had many integration initiatives, both long term and administered by the government. They all have some level of success and failure.

However, with a larger number of both refugees and immigrants we need to look at a consistent approach to helping immigrants integrate into Canadian society. We know that most refugees have many needs including language. A clear plan of action should be in place to ensure that refugees receive basic needs, language training, education and skill training so they can become integrated into all aspects of Canadian life.

There is a desire by the populace to see that new Canadians are distributed throughout the country so that they do not all end up in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. All parts of Canada need population growth. The federal government must come up with a new integration program in consultation with the municipalities and provinces.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Gatineau, and I along with other members had lunch with a Danish delegation to talk about immigration issues. It was interesting that the Danish government had put in place new legislation called the integration act.

The Danish integration policy is based upon the fact that immigrants and refugees on the whole, and especially the newly arrived, have a disadvantage in linguistic and vocational fields which prevent them from participating in society on an equal footing with the rest of the population.

The Danish policy was necessary, while respecting the principle of non-discrimination, to implement special integration measures which aimed to ensure that immigrants and refugees would be able to participate fully in education, the labour market and all other areas of society.

The integration act shifted responsibility for integration measures for the newly arrived from the federal level to the municipal level, which it felt had the best capacity for implementing a comprehensive and co-ordinated set of integration measures concerning housing, community information, education, vocational training and an introduction to the labour market.

That makes a lot of sense. In Canada it is unfortunate that after the first year of arrival most immigrants somehow end up in big cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. It will be interesting to see the results of the Danish initiative.

The Canadian Alliance Party believes Canada needs to do its part in taking in refugees. We understand that refugees are not immigrants. Immigrants choose to move to another country. Refugees are forced to flee, often leaving family and belongings behind.

Eighty per cent of the world's refugees are women and children. In refugee determination, Canada should enforce section F(b) of article one of the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, which states that refugee status should not apply to those who have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his or her admission to that country. Canada cannot afford to take in another country's criminals regardless of whether they are an immigrant or a refugee.

The government calls the new Bill C-11 a framework document. I agree that all it has is the frame. It is short on content. This type of enabling legislation leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately the regulations are authorized by order in council and sometimes have little resemblance to the legislation. Enabling legislation like Bill C-11 leaves too much authority in the hands of the minister.

Let us take a reality check on immigration happenings in Canada. As the House knows, I was appointed the Canadian Alliance chief critic for citizenship and immigration last August. Since that time there has been no shortage of immigration stories.

Most Canadians would agree that our immigration system needs a serious overhaul. Will the new Bill C-11 do the job at this stage? I do not think so. These stories occur almost daily and show the shortcomings of our immigration system.

Let us look at some of the problems that have occurred over the last year. Last August the supreme court ruled on the human smuggling trial in British Columbia. The trial should have sent a wake-up call to the federal government that it must revamp the immigration system. The federal government continues to tout its tough federal legislation, but after the verdict there is no doubt that Canada will remain a number one target for human traffickers.

In Bill C-11 there is a $1 million penalty, but the problem is catching the culprits. Enforcement is the key problem. All the legislation in the world will not help if there are no resources to see things through. The staff must be commended for the job they do in spite of waning resources. It takes a long time to process those coming ashore, and quick action is needed to determine whether the immigrants are bona fide.

Foreign nationals without status should not be under the protection of the Canadian charter. The new immigration act will broaden the definition of who can become a refugee in Canada, which goes well beyond the United Nations' definition of a refugee. If they are criminals they should not be accepted by Canada as refugees. That is within the convention.

While most other western nations are working to tighten their laws, Canada will remain the easiest target in the developed world. We must not forget who is paying the bill: the poor taxpayer.

The government has learned very little since boatloads of illegal migrants from China made their way to Canada's shore last year. The auditor general's report of April 2000 noted serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the Canadian immigration program. Such deficiencies led the auditor general to conclude that the program's integrity was at risk and to question whether the department could handle applications and ensure compliance under the act.

Last August 28, the media reported corruption allegations at Canada's high commission in Hong Kong amid reports that immigration officials accepted gifts while working in Hong Kong. There were also reports that the RCMP official who blew the whistle on the scandal may be fired. That should have been reason enough to call for a third party probe.

In September the department had to deal with health problems associated with testing. Following the report of a malaria outbreak in Quebec, the government should have beefed up standard health testing for refugees and overseas applicants.

The auditor general called 10 years ago for serious upgrades of health standards. Medical staff to conduct such crucial tests has been reduced and the results are outbreaks like the one we heard about in Quebec.

In the April 2000 report from the auditor general, several deficiencies within Canada's immigration program were brought forward. Questions were raised about the standard health tests used by the immigration department and the number of physicians involved in checking for infectious disease. Some 240 refugees who came to Canada from central Africa in August were exposed to the malaria virus. Several of them started turning up in hospitals after joining host families when they arrived.

Again in September the minister stated that she would act on Health Canada's recommendation to test immigrants for HIV and reject applicants who tested positive.

The threat of AIDS is nothing new. The government has failed to protect the health of all Canadians by not acting sooner. In 1994 the hon. member for Calgary Northeast raised a motion in the House calling for AIDS testing and the government voted it down.

Is that the kind of leadership Canadians can trust in the 21st century?

Five years ago there were 44 physicians to check for infectious disease. Today there are something like 22 and they are expected to process over 200,000 claims. The government has failed to address the work overload thrust upon immigration department physicians.

By November Canada had become the home of Mr. Lai Changxing, arrested for allegedly having smuggled billions into China. It was discovered that he had been residing fraudulently in Canada for the past 15 months.

Mr. Lai is a prime example of what is wrong with our immigration system. A wanted criminal from China simply walked into Canada without the benefit of a background check and in doing so compromised the safety of the people of this country. If he is a proven criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be deported to his home country which is eager to welcome him home.

The supreme court decision on deportation has really thrown a monkey wrench into the case. A wanted criminal of Mr. Lai's stature should never have been allowed into Canada. The court's decision served only to send a message that if people break the law they can hide here. That is why Canada is the most attractive destination for the criminals of the world. Under the current system people can claim to be refugees and immigration Canada will allow them to remain in the country regardless of their criminal record.

Are we about to create a new category called a criminal refugee?

My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, the former attorney general of Manitoba and our Canadian Alliance justice critic, expressed strong disapproval at the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay.

The member for Provencher said it would create a haven for any violent criminal, Canadian or otherwise, who would come to Canada to escape the death penalty in the United States or any other country. He also stated that after this precedent setting decision Canada would become a sanctuary for murderers and other violent criminals, putting the safety of law-abiding citizens at risk.

I agree with the member for Provencher. I believe the decision rendered by the supreme court, if it was to have been made, should have been made in the House. There is no doubt the decision has tied the hands of both the immigration minister and the immigration legislation.

In December the people of Hamilton received a scare when it was reported that some 1,200 people had been exposed to a deadly strain of drug resistant TB carried by a new immigrant. That is another example of the quality of screening that takes place before entry into Canada. Again, the first priority of the government should be to protect the lives of its citizens.

Even after the Hamilton scare I wonder if immigration has fixed the problems relating to health testing standards. The auditor general in his April 2000 report made recommendations to improve co-operation between the immigration and health departments, to make adequate resources available to enforce the testing process, and to have a clear definition of what tests should be administered before entry into Canada is allowed.

The auditor general has been telling the immigration department there were serious risks and flaws in the system as far back as 1990. I believe very few improvements have been made since then. It is time the auditor general's advice was taken seriously. We need a defined list of diseases to be tested for, both here and abroad, and resources need to be made available to employ adequate numbers of physicians.

At the very least there must be a very clear and definitive minimum standard of health requirements for entry into Canada, a set of diagnostic procedures for each test administered and an accountable process to monitor immigrants admitted into Canada while undergoing treatment.

Other questions that need to be addressed regarding the health screen process followed by Immigration Canada in granting entrance to immigrants and refugees are: How is it kept up to date? Are there minimum standards? How are they enforced? Is there a process for follow up?

The auditor general made further recommendations for improvement, and here they are. The first one was to ensure in establishing a regular review system that the current list of prohibited diseases keeps pace with world health issues.

The second was to establish, review and ensure a minimum standard of health requirements for entrance into Canada that is strictly enforced.

The third was to establish minimum qualifications and requirements for physicians completing or interpreting test results that would certify an applicant's admissibility.

The fourth was to establish a minimum of diagnostic procedures that must be completed before entry is granted, i.e. TB skin tests, chest x-rays and blood tests.

The last was to establish standards and guidelines for follow up of those who are allowed entrance while undergoing treatment.

In April 2000 the auditor general also said:

We are also very concerned about the lack of rigour and consistency in the overall management of medical assessment activities, including the procedures for supervising the designated local physicians who perform medical examinations of prospective immigrants abroad.

I ask members of the House what is more important in immigration than health standards. Perhaps it is time to incorporate these core principles into the act.

Last week federal statistics were released which show the number of deported individuals is up and that there are about 15,000 missing individuals with warrants. Of the 8,640 deportees in the last year 2,000 were violent criminals who required a personal escort by Canadian officials as they posed a threat to the public. The missing 15,000 are believed to have gone underground and into hiding.

That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the news. Rarely a day goes by without an article on immigration. Canadians should know that we do not keep exit data. We do not know how many foreign nationals are here at any given time. Even if they came into the country on a visa, we do not know if they left the country when their visa ran out. Why would Canadians therefore be surprised at the high number of individuals with warrants?

Canada is the number one destination for criminals to hide out from the law. We should not be surprised that with the recent supreme court ruling on deportation the numbers being deported will dwindle.

It looks like Canada will become the destination of choice for the world's criminals. Even Toronto police chief Julian Fantino agrees. He said “You commit your crime in one place, you run from consequences and accountability and where do you go? You go to a place like Canada”.

In Bill C-11, the government borrowed from private member's bill, Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act and criminal code, refugee or immigration applicants convicted of an offence on indictment. This was tabled in the 35th parliament by the member for Vancouver North.

I liked the tough talk from the minister last week in the media about deporting criminals. Unfortunately, it is tougher walking the talk, especially now that we are living in a post-supreme court period.

As recent as last Friday the Montreal Gazette reported that a suspected Italian Mafia hit man moved freely across the Canadian and U.S. border while courts in Europe were charging him with murder. Immigration Canada alleged that the man knew about the charges but failed to mention them while renewing his visa, a violation of Canada's Immigration Act.

According to the papers it appears that Canadian security and Interpol did not compare notes on this dangerous criminal. What will happen at this deportation hearing if this man claims harm and fears for his life if deported? The examples are endless. They all show the same thing. Our immigration system needs a major overhaul beyond the creation of a new act.

Even the lawyers in the country are not happy with the current immigration system. I will quote from the August-September 2000 issue of the National , a publication of the Canadian Bar Association. In fact, the minister of immigration is in that very publication. This was what some of the members had to say when asked what was wrong with Canada's immigration system.

The first quote is from Allen Ruben of Fredericton, New Brunswick. He said “The 1994 budget cuts at the immigration department sliced away one-third of its human and financial resources, leading to processing delays of up to three years in the entry of urgently needed foreign workers”.

The second quote is from Isabelle Dongier of Montreal. She said “The immigration rules are so complicated and hard to understand that they are very irregularly applied and interpreted. If you present a case at the border you can sit there with five different officers and have five different interpretations of the same situation”.

The last quote is from Michael Greene of Calgary. He said “There is hardly any regulation for unscrupulous immigration consultants, some of them disbarred lawyers who prey on ill-informed and vulnerable immigrants. It is astounding that a government department would take so little care of the people it deals with, especially when they know they are dealing with people who are particularly ignorant of our laws and customs”.

Even the lawyers are frustrated with our immigration system. The most reliable scrutineer of the government of the day, as we all know, is the office of the Auditor General of Canada. Much of what was said 10 years ago by the auditor general on the immigration file was repeated in his April 2000 report.

For the record, I will read the auditor general's news release dated in Ottawa on April 11, 2000. It was titled, “Immigration services abroad are in trouble and need urgent attention”, chapter 3. It said:

In his Report tabled today in Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, notes serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the economic component of the Canadian Immigration Program, whose aim is to recruit skilled workers and business immigrants. Immigration offices abroad are overtasked, controls to protect health and safety of Canadians are deficient, and the Department is vulnerable to fraud and abuse. In addition, the Department is open to criticism of the quality and consistency of its decisions.

“Immigrants provide a steady flow of talent and new skills to our labour force. The deficiencies we noted in our audit seriously limit Canada's ability to get the economic and social benefits that immigration affords and seriously weakens the level of protection for Canadians intended in the Immigration Act”, said Denis Desautels. He added that it is highly questionable whether the Department has the capacity it needs to meet the annual immigration levels set by the government.

We know that immigration levels have been set for the past two years at between 200,000 and 225,000. In 1999 approximately 190,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada; 56% were economic immigrants, skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors and self-employed workers.

Among the findings of the report were the following. First, selected criteria and process were not conducive to a rigorous selection of immigrants who were highly qualified and able to contribute to our economy. Second, applicants could wait up to three years for a decision. That is intolerable. Third, there were significant weaknesses in medical assessment of prospective immigrants. The same routine tests have been required for the last 40 years, despite the emergence of new diseases. Canadians should be concerned about their health. Fourth, some immigrants were admitted to Canada without reasonable assurance that they had not committed crimes abroad. Fifth, there were inadequate controls over revenue, visa forms and computer systems in offices abroad.

The auditor general urged the department and the government to take immediate action to address both policy and administrative issues. The statement of Mr. Desautels from April 2000 went on to say:

“It is disappointing to note that several of the problems we raise today are similar to those reported in 1990”, said Denis Desautels. “Employees responsible for processing applications in offices abroad are deeply concerned about the present state of affairs and I share their concerns”.

As hon. members can see, our immigration system is in dire need of a major overhaul. The question is how will the new act fix the old problems that go as far back as 1990? How accountable will the minister be in getting these problems rectified. The buck does stop at the minister's desk.

The old saying goes that it is always easier to criticize. In other words, what would the Canadian Alliance do to fix the problems? Let me, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, present some solutions. Let me begin by saying that we will make the system work. The current system of immigration is workable. It is just very badly mismanaged and underfunded.

The department works with at least three other federal departments; health, foreign affairs and human resources. Better co-operation and communication among all these other parties would be a good first step in correcting what is wrong with the department.

Staff at all levels need to be better educated as to their role. The roles need to be standardized across the board. Those with the most experience in security, for example, should probably handle security matters. If the RCMP and CSIS are on board to help at all immigration offices around the world, then their expertise in determining security risks should be utilized. If the RCMP and CSIS are not using their expertise in determining security risks, then it is high time they were.

It is long overdue for an overhaul of the Immigration and Refugee Board system, beginning by making this system more transparent, less partisan and more credible. Members of the IRB should be hired on merit, not politics.

The department needs to undergo a full financial audit to determine areas of overlap and waste. There is currently not enough staff to handle the workload. The latest budget cuts have reduced the medical staff both in Canada and overseas assignments. It is interesting that the auditor general made these same complaints 10 years ago. There must be put in place an evaluation process to determine whether the system is working as a unit. There is no doubt that better co-ordination needs to take place between overseas offices as well as those in Canada.

The definition of what a bona fide refugee is must be clear. We need to follow the UN convention to which we are a signatory. As is currently happening, almost anyone entering Canada can claim refugee status. By the time they are processed and heard, many years have passed. Most Canadians agree that refugees should not be detained for long periods of time and that the determination process must be compressed.

Canadians want an immigration system that protects their borders from the criminals and terrorists of the world. Our security system needs to be addressed. Proper training in criminal background checks and risk assessments should be mandatory for all these officers.

As I have illustrated throughout this debate, there are numerous problems with the issue of security. The question which is always raised is how did these undesirables get here in the first place? Our research shows that there is very little communication or information sharing, sometimes none between the RCMP, CSIS and other international security agencies such as Interpol. A recent Montreal case is a good example.

Another problem we learned is what information is shared is sometimes undisclosed in a court during an appeal on an application. Therefore, visa officers are reluctant to decline applications on the basis of inadmissibility for security reasons. It is very difficult to prove the standards of inadmissibility. Further, there is no deterrent against applicants repeatedly submitting false applications, therefore increasing their chances of getting through the system. There needs to be sharing of information between RCMP, CSIS and visa officers.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in its report entitled, “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”, recommended that the Government of Canada increase resources for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the RCMP so that they would be able to meet the challenges posed by traffickers in people and ensure the safety and security of Canada and its people. Perhaps it is time Canada stationed members of both the RCMP and CSIS permanently at our overseas locations.

We believe that once an applicant has been found to have willingly turned in a false application, which is a breach of the act, that person should not be allowed to reapply for entry into Canada. If we take our security seriously, the penalty for lying needs to be equally harsh. The minister should have the authority to deport an individual or decline the entry of an individual based on criminal, violent or terrorist acts without question or appeal.

The whole system of processing refugees must be addressed. We need to process refugees expediently. It is inhumane to detain or lock up refugees for long lengths of time, as was the case on the west coast where foreign nationals who claimed refugee status were locked up for over a year.

We would make the process work smoother if we adhered to the definition as written by the United Nations, that a refugee arrives, not by choice for economic gain but is here due to persecution based on race, religion, ethnic origin or political opinion. I must say that 95% of the refugee claims are credible. It is the 5% that we are concerned about and many of them are criminals who we do not need.

One way of dealing with these criminals who claim refugee status is that we should not be giving them full charter status until they have been declared bona fide refugees. Canadians wonder how foreign nationals can have full charter protection when they are foreign nationals before being declared bona fide refugees.

Penalties for those abusing the refugee claimant system should be steep and serve as a deterrent for all future would be fraudulent claims.

There is another point I would like to raise. Perhaps it is time that Canada should keep exit data so that we know who is in the country. Otherwise Canada is a pretty easy place to hide once inside its borders. Maybe it is time to photograph all those entering across our borders.

The minister must be more accountable for the operation of her department. Canadians are tired of hearing immigration problems almost daily on the news. They are asking the question, who is minding the store. There is a consensus that the immigration system in the country needs a major overhaul. Bill C-11 is only one step to help rectify the problems. It is long overdue that the government of the day to introduce new legislation since this current act is of 1976 vintage. The bill needs changes like all bills at second reading.

I close by saying that immigration is everybody's business. I would say that most Canadians can relate personally to immigration, if not in their immediate family, then certainly in the heritage of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents. We all know that immigration will play a major role in the future of the country.

The Canadian Alliance will take a constructive approach to Bill C-11 at committee. We will continue to hold the government accountable for its lack of action. We will put forth amendments to strengthen the bill. We will listen to Canadians as they come forth with their ideas for improvement. Immigration is everybody's business. All Canadians need to be aware that a new immigration bill is in the making. Persons wanting a copy of the bill should contact their member of parliament.

I invite our viewers and all Canadians to communicate with their members of parliament, or with me as chief opposition critic, concerns and changes that they would like to see in this draft piece of legislation called Bill C-11.

The standing committee will be travelling across the country, probably in the spring, to listen to Canadians. Perhaps anyone who cannot attend these hearings would like to send in a written presentation to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and anyone who would like to appear before the standing committee could please contact their member of parliament, myself or the clerk of the standing committee.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act to the House for second reading. When the business of the House came to a close because of the election call, the progress of Bill C-31, the previous immigration and refugee protection act that I introduced in the House last spring, was of course brought to a halt.

This time however has given me the opportunity to review in detail the many discussions that ensued and the many submissions which were received subsequent to the introduction of the previous bill.

In particular, the time has given me the opportunity to consider carefully what Canadians were saying about the bill, both in its broad orientation as well as in specific detail. I can say I was pleased to note that Canadians were generally quite supportive of the previous bill known as Bill C-31.

They also expressed a few concerns. I am happy to say that I have addressed many of those concerns and the issues that were expressed. In Bill C-11 we have addressed what I believe were the most serious of those concerns. I have incorporated a number of recent proposals and I will describe those momentarily. I want to be clear that Bill C-11 maintains the core principles and the provisions of the previous bill.

This is important legislation, legislation which will be of great benefit to the country. The reason why is quite simple. By saying “no” more quickly to those who would abuse our rules, we will be able to say “yes” more often to those immigrants and refugees who Canada will need to grow and prosper in the years ahead.

This new legislation flows from four years of consultation. We had consultation with our constitutional partners in immigration matters, the provinces and the territories and with others interested in immigration matters. Those consultations have been both substantive as well as extensive.

The provinces have been quick to point out that we will only be able to increase our overall immigration levels, as the government is committed to, if we are prepared to improve our ability to absorb and to integrate those increased numbers. I understand and I accept this completely.

We have also consulted wisely, widely and substantially with many non-governmental groups and others involved in the business of settlement services for immigrants and refugees. I have met with Canadians, with permanent residents, with those who have been here for generations and with those who are newcomers. We have consulted as well with business leaders about the need for skilled workers. We have worked out innovative new ways to see that highly skilled workers on the move around the world will identify Canada as their destination of choice, our communities, our culture and our society.

Our economy has benefited enormously from immigration in the past. The evidence is seen all around us. We must continue to welcome new arrivals so that Canada will continue to grow and prosper and continue to be recognized in the years ahead as the best place in the world in which to live.

Of course we know that Canada is increasingly being challenged by other countries that are competing for the world's best and brightest who are seeking opportunities abroad. This competition will only grow more intense in the years ahead as more countries desire the benefits of immigration and experience the demographic changes that I believe and I know most western countries are facing.

The new century will belong to those who are best able to develop and expand their collective human capital. The knowledge based economy has become a reality. If Canada is to compete and succeed, we must continue to attract skilled workers from across the globe, to share their knowledge and their skills and to build bridges with the rest of the world. This means attracting not just skilled and hardworking individuals, it means reuniting them with their families as quickly as possible and welcoming them into the Canadian family. It means honouring our proud humanitarian tradition which begins with our commitment to provide safe haven to those in genuine need of our protection.

In the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to modernizing and streamlining Canada's immigration and refugee protection systems. With Bill C-11, we are doing it. The bill simplifies the current Immigration Act. It enhances the safety and security of Canadians and of Canada's borders. It strengthens our ability to attract the immigrants we need and reaffirms our traditional openness to newcomers.

In short, it provides us with all that we need to fulfill our dual mandate, which is to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity and not obey our rules, so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants and refugees like those who came before them, who came here to build this wonderful country.

The bill will enable us to meet the challenges and take advantage of the enormous opportunities that the new century holds for this country.

Bill C-11 remains a tough bill. However, I want to emphasize that it is tough on criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee protection systems. The bill creates severe new penalties for people smugglers and for those caught trafficking in humans. These are deplorable activities. There will be fines of up to $1 million and sentences of up to life in prison for persons convicted of smuggling and trafficking in humans. It will also allow our courts to order the forfeiture of money and other property seized from traffickers.

The bill clarifies our existing grounds for detention and our criteria for inadmissibility to Canada. It provides immigration enforcement officers with the tools they need to see that serious criminals, threats to national security, violators of human rights, participants in organized crime and members of terrorist organizations are barred entry to Canada.

Bill C-11 will introduce front end security screening of all refugee claimants, fewer appeals for serious criminals and suspension of refugee claims for those charged with crimes until the courts have rendered a decision. This is what Canadians want and this is what we have delivered.

Bill C-11 will also streamline the refugee determination process. Referrals to the immigration and refugee board will take place within three working days of a claim. By consolidating several current steps and protection criteria into a single decision at the IRB and, moreover, by combining increased use of single member panels at the board with an internal paper appeal on merit, we will see faster but fairer decisions on refugee claims.

Combining grounds for protection at our IRB, Bill C-11 will maintain due process and a fair hearing for refugee claimants, while offering fewer opportunities for protracted judicial review at the federal court. Once again, this is a good example of streamlining.

I should note that Bill C-11 does not expand on the existing grounds for protection. It simply consolidates several current protection criteria and corresponding protection decisions into a single step. Grounds for protection will remain the same as they are at present in keeping with Canada's international human rights obligations.

Bill C-11 also takes steps to address the frustrating revolving door syndrome that has become associated with repeat claims. Failed claimants removed from Canada after receiving a fair hearing and due process, should they return to Canada to make a repeat claim, will no longer return to the immigration and refugee board. Instead, if they return to Canada seeking protection after six months, they will be given a pre-removal risk assessment to determine whether circumstances relevant to their previous claim have changed. Before six months, they are entitled to seek refugee protection only at our missions outside of Canada.

Bill C-11 will also strengthen the integrity of our immigration system. It will tighten up sponsorship provisions to see that those who sponsor new immigrants are both able and willing to meet their financial obligations. They will be required to keep their promises.

Bill C-11 will improve our ability to recover the costs of social assistance in the cases of sponsorship default. In regulations to accompany Bill C-11, we will deny sponsorship to those in default of spousal or child support payments, those on social assistance and those convicted of spousal or child abuse.

Bill C-11 will also establish a new class of inadmissibility for those who commit fraud or misrepresentation on immigration applications. It will create a new offence for those caught helping anyone to gain status in Canada through fraud or misrepresentation.

New arrivals would be required to demonstrate reasonable attachment to our country in order to maintain permanent residence status. Bill C-11 would require physical presence in Canada for at least two of every five years for new immigrants to maintain their permanent residence status.

These changes are very important for one very simple reason. It is about respect. In my many discussions with individuals and organizations across Canada, I can assure members that this point has been made abundantly clear. Canadians want a system that is based on respect, both respect for our laws and our traditional openness to newcomers. Bill C-11 would do just that.

I spoke of the steps to close the back door, but equally Bill C-11 would allow us to open the front door wider. We would improve our ability to attract skilled workers and speed up family reunification. In regulations authorized by Bill C-11, we would modernize our selection system for skilled workers. Independent immigrants would be selected for their adaptability, level of education and training, language skills, experience and general level of employability.

In today's rapidly evolving labour markets we need people who are best able to adapt to new occupations as the needs of the labour market shift over time. These are people who would thrive and contribute to our prosperity in the economy of this new century.

Bill C-11 would also provide easier access for highly skilled temporary foreign workers so that Canadian businesses can stay competitive and seize every opportunity for expansion. Many skilled workers who come to Canada on a temporary basis are subsequently offered permanent positions.

The regulations to Bill C-11 would allow these workers to apply for landing from within Canada under certain conditions, just as it would allow foreign students who have graduated and worked in Canada also to apply for landing from within Canada.

Bill C-11 also recognizes that family reunification has always been a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. Canadians know that new arrivals establish themselves more quickly and much better when they have the support of their extended families. Bill C-11 and its supporting regulations would allow spouses, partners and dependent children to apply for landing from within Canada provided that they are already here legally and that they made appropriate admissibility provisions.

I started my remarks by making references to the improvements I made in the bill to address some of the concerns that had been raised in relation to Bill C-31. I will say a few words about the changes.

One key concern that I heard was that the previous bill had to do with the idea of framework legislation. I understand the concern but I consider it all the same. Framework legislation remains essential to the efficient administration of the immigration program, particularly in the context of changing global environment in which it operates and would continue to operate. Framework legislation allows us the flexibility to make changes through regulation when sudden, unforeseen circumstances require. However I made a commitment to see that all key principles and policies are set out explicitly in the act rather than in regulations.

Bill C-11 enshrines in the act the principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and the equality of English and French as official languages of Canada. It also makes explicit the provision that parents are members of the family class. There is, moreover, an explicit provision now in the act that sponsors spouses, partners, dependent children and refugees resettled from abroad, along with their dependents, would not be denied admission on grounds that they would create an excessive demand on our medical system.

Bill C-11 also affirms in legislation the principle that children should only be detained as a last resort. It provides a clear definition of permanent resident to distinguish the rights of permanent residents from those of other foreign nationals.

Oral hearings have been reinstated for those facing loss of permanent resident status, and provisions have been clarified for allowing new evidence to be presented at those appeals.

Bill C-11 would also facilitate the return of permanent residents with expired permanent resident cards if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.

We have built in a higher threshold for examination within Canada related to inadmissibility and immigration officers would now require a warrant to arrest a permanent resident on any immigration matter.

Before denying access to the refugee determination system to persons convicted of serious criminal offences outside of Canada, the bill requires a ministerial danger opinion. This provision is a safeguard to protect those who may have been convicted of politically trumped up charges.

The bill makes explicit our policy that people refused refugee resettlement overseas by a Canadian visa officer would nonetheless be able to apply for refugee status from within Canada.

Finally, I am happy to say that the United Nations high commissioner for refugees will be allowed to observe IRB hearings and participate as an intervener in cases before the refugee appeal division. I believe these improvements both strengthen the bill's integrity and protects the rights of individuals before the immigration and refugee protection systems.

Bill C-11 gives us a balanced approach to immigration and refugee protection policy.

Since the initial passage of the current Immigration Act in 1976, I know we all agree that the world has changed dramatically. More than ever before, people are on the move for trade, tourism, investment and education in order to develop their skills, to share their knowledge, to pursue their dreams, to find safety and to reunite with family.

Canada has been the enormous beneficiary of this global movement of people.

The swift passage of Bill C-11 into law would allow us to modernize our immigration and refugee protection systems. It would allow us to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

Let me assure the House that regulations in support of Bill C-11 will be developed in as an open and consultative manner as this bill has been developed. It will give members of the House, key immigration stakeholders and individual Canadians ample opportunity to share their views.

Issues of immigration and refugee protection are very important to the country. They take us to many of our core values that we as Canadians share. An open and transparent regulatory process would ensure that Canadians support the rules that are put in place.

Let me also assure the House that Bill C-11 recognizes that immigration is an area of jurisdiction that the federal government shares with the provinces and territories. Bill C-11 would commit the Government of Canada to continue consulting and working with our partners, the provinces and territories, in these matters.

The government is fully committed to the social union framework agreement and recognizes that immigration does impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health care, education and social services.

However, immigration also brings enormous social, cultural and economic benefits to Canada, its provinces and cities, benefits that must be weighed against the short term costs. Indeed, it is one of the reasons that so many of our provinces are currently looking to attract more immigrants. They know as we all do that immigrants and refugees built this country.

Under the new provisions of Bill C-11, immigrants and refugees would continue to help build the country in the future. I am proud to move adoption and second reading of Bill C-11.