Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1995

Auditor General Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

A while ago I invoked Standing Order 43(2). It is my understanding that the member for Davenport would perhaps like to speak slightly more than 10 minutes, if the House has no objection, with the understanding that it would conclude the speakers on the government side.

Perhaps he will speak more than 10 minutes. On the other hand there will be no other speakers so the effect will be the same, if the House agrees.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the debate this afternoon has developed along five major areas of discussion as raised by opposition members.

The first area is whether the independence of the auditor general is in question as a result of the bill. The answer to that question is that it is not. The independence of the auditor general is maintained, is reinforced and is in full tradition developed by the House over the decades.

The second area concerns whether the bill adds an additional layer of bureaucracy and a cost that is unwarranted. Again the answer is no. It is actually a recommendation. As some members of the opposition have indicated, the bill reflects the recommendations made in committee by several members of the opposition to the effect that the measures should be as tight and as task oriented as possible with no unnecessary bureaucracy added to the existing one.

The third area is whether there is intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. This concern has been raised by different speakers this afternoon. The answer is simply no, there is no intrusion envisioned. No passage of the bill can be interpreted as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. I will elaborate on that later.

The fourth area raised deals with whether there is an ombudsman role for the proposed commissioner of sustainable development. The answer is probably yes for reasons I will elaborate in a moment.

The final area is whether the bill is in harmony with federal-provincial relations. The answer is also a very positive yes.

The member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies referred to the appearance of the auditor general before the committee. He did us a good service because he reminded us of the important and delicate role the auditor general has to perform. He has to examine the way in which policies are implemented but he does not comment on the policy. We fully agree with that interpretation of the role of the auditor general, as the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies has stressed. The bill correctly provides for the power to check on the manner in which policies are carried out but not on the content of the policies. The distinction is extremely important and we all agree on it.

What will this commissioner do? The commissioner will measure the performance of each federal department's plan. The commissioner will seek and request that the plan be updated every three years.

Who will prepare the plans? It will be the departments themselves. Some will prepare advanced plans. Presumably the Department of the Environment will want to prove that it is the best. Others will produce less ambitious plans. However the role of the commissioner will be to measure performance against the plan prepared by each federal department.

The word federal cannot be underlined a sufficient number of times. We are talking here about federal jurisdiction and no other jurisdiction. As I said, the plans will be updated every three years to improve their quality. We will learn to walk before we are able to run.

The parliamentary secretary was quoted by the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies as having said in the earlier debate that the commissioner would act as an ombudsman. The answer is yes. The commissioner will monitor the minister's replies to petitions. In that sense the commissioner will perform the role of ombudsman. The commissioner will also monitor the extent to which departments implement the action plans and departmental strategies, as I mentioned before, and report annually to the Chamber.

In that sense alone the commissioner on behalf of the public will report to the public through the Chamber; a beautiful role and the quintessence of democratic accountability.

The member for New Westminster-Burnaby started his intervention by saying his party supports the general concept but criticizes it because "this will be money spent on status building trappings".

The reality of Bill C-83 is that it is exactly the opposite. This commissioner will not be a status building bureaucrat. This individual will be the right hand of the auditor general and will report to the auditor general. The commissioner will be functioning on all matters related to sustainable development within the office of the auditor general. Therefore the commissioner will be performing in the best sense of the word by doing the most with the least possible budgetary requirements. Instead of creating a separate office the commissioner will be performing and expanding a role which the auditor general has initiated in recent times.

When he appeared before our committee the auditor general did say that some 7 or 8 per cent of his activities and budgetary resources are already devoted to environment and sustainable development matters.

The commissioner will somehow strengthen, widen and build on this role that evidently needs to be given statutory recognition and some resources in order to perform a job which the auditor general cannot perform with the resources available at the present time.

We have somehow come up with a very clever solution that does accommodate the desire to keep budgetary expenses to a minimum and at the same time permits us to assume an additional role,

ensuring the federal jurisdiction does implement its commitment to the sustainable development goal we all have heard about.

Does Bill C-83 add new levels of bureaucracy? The answer is no. Is Bill C-83 a cost effective piece of legislation? Most definitely yes. Will the commissioner be as independent as he or she should be? The answer is yes because the commissioner operates within the independent office of the auditor general. Therefore political pressures are out of the question.

The criticism, which we always take seriously, saying Bill C-83 tries to add bureaucracy and is costly and politically oriented is not founded. Therefore it is important we set the record straight.

Then we come to the member for Laurentides, evidently preoccupied with federal-provincial relations. I do not know whether I could convince her, even if I were to repeat until midnight that there is no provincial interference in this bill. Evidently we have reached the point at which this argument can no longer follow a logical path.

I assure the hon. member for Laurentides there is no danger of interference. There will be neither short term nor long term negative effects on Quebec. There is no danger to the environment of Quebec.

The government does not want to impose itself on provincial jurisdiction. The province of Ontario, which has already an equivalent commissioner for sustainable development, not only did not object to this initiative, it sent its commissioner to appear before the committee. She gave the committee good advice.

If Ontario does not object, why should Quebec? No other province has objected. No other jurisdiction has said anything. I do not recall receiving a letter from the Government of Quebec objecting to Bill C-83 not only during the debate but since the bill was introduced in the House.

The hon. member for Laurentides said her party was far more concerned with the environment than the Liberal Party. I am glad to hear that. If that is the case, I invite the Bloc Quebecois to support the bill, a bill to protect the environment. A good member of Parliament from the province of Quebec should be glad to see any measures which improve the overall quality of the environment because, as we know, environmental issues know no boundaries. The better the entire North American continent performs in economic and environmental matters and in their integration, the better will be the health of the entire population. There is everything to be gained.

With respect to duplications, to my knowledge there is no duplication to be afraid of. On the contrary, there can be a very substantial and significant integration between the role of a provincial commissioner for sustainable development who operates within provincial jurisdiction and the federal commissioner.

Evidently the hon. member for Laurentides is blind to the fact that there is a federal territory. There is the north. Therefore the commissioner will be responsible for what happens on federal lands. Federal lands are quite extensive north of 60.

It is unfortunate both members of the Bloc Quebecois could not resist the temptation to launch personal accusations against the Minister of the Environment. It has now become a permanent habit. I do not want to comment further on the matter except to say what I said on Monday, that we have the best environment minister we have ever had. She has taken very courageous stands. She is the first environment minister who has taken the matter of the Irving Whale to heart and begun to do something about it. I do not recall an initiative by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he was Minister of the Environment with the previous Conservative government.

I found it amusing when the hon. member for Laurentides objected to section 21(1). She went over each of the points which outlined the purpose of the commissioner. When she reached point (d), meeting international obligations, she said the provinces are never consulted or told about Canada's commitments. That is not true. The provinces are always consulted before the government makes an international commitment. Not only that, in almost every Canadian delegation travelling to an international gathering there is a representative of Quebec or representatives of more than one province. In almost every international delegation the member for Laurentides will not be able to prove that Quebec is not represented.

The amusing part on the point she objected to so much about international obligations, which has to do with the question of the commitment taken by Canada on carbon dioxide, is that it was her leader, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in 1991 in Bergen, who committed Canada to the question of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It was he who did it on behalf of Canada.

Today we have this absurdity of the hon. member for Laurentides objecting to an initiative taken by her own leader in 1991. What a sham.

Let us move to point (a) of 21(1). The member for Laurentides says the integration of the environment and the economy will work against the provincial jurisdiction because of procurement policies. This is quite an acrobatic leap of logic, if it can be described that way. The integration of the environment and the economy will be measured within the performance of that particular department.

The member for Laurentides was not a member of the committee when we wrote that report, that is true, so one cannot expect her to know the report well. At least she should know how the bill applies in practice. It will be applied within the performance of a plan prepared by the department. That plan will be submitted to the House of Commons every year for comments. To bring in this red herring of procurement policies is an unusual feat of imagination.

The member for Laurentides also objects to the second principle, the one of protecting the health of Canadians. The health of Canadians is not just a provincial responsibility. We protect the health of Canadians at the border. We protect the health of Canadians in interprovincial matters. No one has the monopoly, and the role of the provinces is extremely important and complements the federal jurisdiction.

It is quite interesting that three weeks ago in Jakarta, Canada managed to obtain the acceptance of Montreal as the winning city in a competition for the biodiversity commission, a remarkable breakthrough in relation to the acceptance and the reputation of Canada abroad in matters related to the environment.

Time is running out and therefore I am not able to deal with the other items that have been objected to by the member for Laurentides in sustainable development. I can only confirm that from preventing pollution to promoting equity, these are not the monopoly of the provinces. These are not the monopoly of the federal government. These are broad concepts that can be adopted by any level of government for the benefit of the public and for the long term benefit of the population, no matter where people live.

Let me put on record, since our international reputation was criticized earlier, what the OECD said in its report a couple of weeks ago. It praised the environmental assessment process. It praised the environmental analysis of legislation we carry out from time to time. It praised the round tables on the economy and environment. Last but not least, it praised the proposed commissioner of environment and sustainable development.

This bill has made it as far as Paris and it has received the support of the international community. It cannot be that bad.

If the Bloc Quebecois members want to live with their heads in the sand and ignore the reality of life in the larger world, that is their choice, but it certainly does not project a proactive, open, and intelligent aura.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday, November 27, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would find unanimous consent to further defer the said vote until Tuesday, November 28, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton, ON]

Madam Speaker, this government's foreign policy includes the commitment to create jobs for Canadians through international trade.

From time to time the government grants export credits to other countries in order to promote investment in Canada. This is a very aggressive means of creating Canadian jobs through international trade. Such a bold policy must be carefully monitored.

As Edmund Burke once wrote, "It is the nature of all greatness not to be exact, and great trade will always be attended with considerable abuses". It is the role of government to identify and minimize these abuses. My purpose today is to identify one aspect in the administration of Canada's trade policy that has led to the loss of many valuable Canadian jobs.

Through the Government of Canada Canadian taxpayers gave an export credit in the order of $200 million to Guangdong province during a visit by a delegation to Ottawa in April 1993. In November of 1994 Nortel announced that it had finalized an agreement with Guangdong province to manufacture and install switching equipment in China. The value of the contract was $200 million. The impact of this agreement was swift and devastating. In March of this year Nortel announced that it was laying off 580 Canadians at its Brampton plant, which brings the total number of jobs lost since 1994 at that plant alone to 1,300. At the same time, Nortel announced it would add 3,000 manufacturing jobs to its plant in Guangdong province over the next three years.

I want to be clear that my quarrel is not with Nortel. Although I am not at all happy that 1,300 jobs have been lost in my riding, I recognize that Nortel's concern is ultimately the bottom line. Its present circumstance confirms it is reacting to market conditions, as Canadian sales have declined while export sales have increased dramatically.

A recent issue of "Report on Business" described the countless hours Nortel invested in winning this contract. Even the first challenge faced by Nortel was a difficult one.

After signing a memorandum of understanding in December 1992, Chinese officials became upset that Canadian parliamentarians were expressing their concerns about human rights violations by the Chinese government. Chinese officials threatened to walk away from further negotiations. Nortel responded by telling Chinese officials that they were with Nortel U.S., not Nortel Canada. Having distanced themselves from Canadian parliamentarians, Nortel finalized this deal a little less than two years later.

This is a valuable case study for parliamentarians. It clearly demonstrates that export credits must be accompanied by assurances that jobs are created in Canada rather than in low wage economies. The focus of job creation through international trade must remain fixed on Canada. The government must move swiftly to ensure strong Canadian labour content in export assistance programs. A strong first step would be to reverse the recent reduction in the Export Development Corporation's Canadian labour content requirements.

We made a commitment to Canadians that we will promote job creation through international trade. This is a commitment we must keep.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

The Canadian telecommunication equipment industry is one of the shining stars in Canada's high technology galaxy. It accounts for 21 per cent of business enterprise research and development undertaken in Canada and is a major employer of university scientific technology graduates. It is a major earner of export revenues. Typically, the small to medium sized enterprises in this business export 90 per cent of their products.

World wide, the industry is dominated by a small number of very large corporations that were established on the basis of serving national or regional markets. With the fundamental changes that are taking place in the provision of communications services world wide, the equipment industry is undergoing massive changes of globalization and restructuring. Canada is fortunate that one of these developing global players is based in Canada and maintains its headquarters and large portions of its research and development and manufacturing here. A consequence of these benefits is constant restructuring.

I am certainly sympathetic with the plight of the workers being displaced by Northern Telecom's decision to transfer manufacturing out of its Bramalea facility and convert it into the corporate world headquarters. I know the important role these workers played in building the product that was responsible in large part for the modernization of the Canadian telecom infrastructure and for taking Canada's reputation as a source of quality advanced telecom equipment around the world. I wish them the best as they adjust to their new circumstances. I am pleased that much of the work done in Bramalea is staying in Canada and that job growth is continuing in other areas of the industry.

Sustained success in this business for Northern Telecom and for other firms that comprise the Canadian telecom equipment industry is through access to foreign markets. It is important that we in Canada provide a competitive environment from which to supply the world market.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.11 p.m.)