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.