Debates of April 27th, 2006

Softwood Lumber

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when we came into the House before the Prime Minister spoke, members will recall that from the NDP benches there was a great attack on the reputation and on the activities of the previous Liberal government. That attack was warmly received by our colleagues opposite in the Conservative Party for reasons we in this party and the Canadian public understand. The Canadian public understands that it was the NDP's betrayal of the possibility of getting so many things done in November that resulted in the Conservative government being elected.

When the leader of the NDP rises in his place in the House today he will no doubt be congratulating the Prime Minister for what he has done because he and his party are responsible for where we are today on this and on other files.

Today we are called upon to rise in our place in this House and comment on the Prime Minister's speech in respect of the deal that he has just achieved. We have not seen the agreement. The Prime Minister is an intelligent and knowledgeable observer of international trade. He will know that these, as in all agreements, the devil is in the details. I have a strong suspicion that there will be a lot more devils in those details than the Prime Minister revealed to this House in his speech today.

It is very hard for us to believe the Prime Minister's words when he says that there is a real improvement as a result of the agreement that he is boasting about in the House today. After all, I watched this deal on television this afternoon and most industry representatives condemned it completely and without reserve.

The Prime Minister told the House today that he received stable and open market access. What we got, what industry got and what Canadians got were several things. We got stable limited access. This is not free and open trade. This is capped and managed trade.

Hidden in his statement, the Prime Minister made it clear that the market access that is guaranteed under the agreement is market access that is guaranteed under present day economic conditions and present day conditions of trade. We know that when we see the details of the agreement we will see draconian measures in the agreement that will punish our industry the minute the conditions in the United States go down and the American industry, which has been sold out through this agreement, will shut Canadian lumber out now because it is not in its interest. That is what we will find out when we get the details of the agreement.

The Prime Minister spoke to us today about the $4 billion of illegal duties that the agreement provides for. Where is the elusive $1 billion that the Prime Minister spoke about in his election campaign? I would like to remind the government of what the Conservative platform provided for. On page 19 of its platform it reads:

A Conservative government will:

Demand that the U.S. government play by the rules on softwood lumber. The U.S. must abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber, repeal the Byrd Amendment, and return the more than $5 billion in illegal softwood lumber tariffs to Canadian producers.

Today the $5 billion, by the magic of the Prime Minister's words and no doubt with a little help from his finance minister, has become $4 billion. What will happen to the $1 billion? We know very well what will happen to the $1 billion that have been left on the table. We know that under the Byrd amendment that $1 billion will go into the coffers of the American lumber industry which will use that money to continue to harass the Canadian lumber industry the way it has been doing for the last 12 years, with hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and constant attacks.

Does anybody believe this will put a stop to the aggressive American lumber industry's attacks on the Canadian lumber industry the minute their market share is threatened? I suggest to the House that is a complete pipe dream. The Prime Minister has betrayed what he said when he told the Canadian people, “If the rules are simply ignored, then the very basis of a rules based trading system threatens to come unravelled and the future of all Canadian-American trade relations could probably be affected”.

Obviously illegally collected duties must be returned to the Canadian softwood industry. That is what our treaty and laws demand but that is what the government failed to demand when it entered into this agreement under the pressure of President Bush and the American lumber barons. I think it is most unfortunate.

We have heard that this is a seven year deal capable of being extended. I am not surprised the Americans would be delighted to extend this deal. This is a deal they would be delighted to extend forever and forever, but will our Canadian industry want to see the deal?

What I heard our colleagues from Quebec saying is that they are already afraid that the industry in Quebec will be completely wiped out by this agreement. Everyone who speaks for the workers, the people who work in the plants and the people who depend on this industry, are very concerned about what this agreement means.

When we have a chance, we will study the details. Let us rely on what the people in the industry, who know what is good for them, are saying. Let us not rely on the words of politicians who wanted to put an end to this matter at any cost. That is what has happened today. Canadian industry has been sold out, to put an end to something that was embarrassing the government. That is clear and plain.

The Prime Minister said that today was a good day. He believes so. If I were standing in the United States Congress, if I were standing in the United States trade office and if I were standing in a United States industry meeting I would be saying that , this is not a good day; this is a great day. Unfortunately, it is a great day for American industry, for American politics in trade and it is a disaster for Canada, for free trade and the Canadian industry.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that my remarks are preliminary: I have not read the agreement and I have negotiated often enough to know that it is better to read an agreement before coming to any conclusions. The Leader of the Opposition is actually correct. The devil is often in the details. We will not know until we read the agreement. If it is a good one, I would not hesitate to congratulate the Prime Minister.

However, I have not read the agreement. I was here a decade ago when I heard a speech something like this one made by a Liberal leader at that time. He told us that he had got an extraordinary agreement and that from now on there would be no more problems with the Americans in the area of softwood lumber. Praises were sung of the fantastic days to come and it was a great day for Canada at the time. We have seen what happened. We have seen that the Americans did not honour that agreement either, an agreement signed by the Liberals, which was not a favourable one, even though they praised it as eloquently as the Prime Minister has done today. I therefore prefer to be cautious.

A few details have drawn my attention, however. I did in fact hold joint press conferences on this issue with the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, in his former role as leader of the opposition, calling for the $5.1 billion to be returned in full. Because I have done it so often, I recognize that plans may have to be abandoned during negotiations, but I have never abandoned anything after a ruling was given in my favour. When they rule in your favour, it is not the time to say that you are going to ask for a little less. It is rather like the police arresting someone who has robbed you of $100 on the street and offering a good deal: the thief will agree to give you back $80, and the whole thing will be forgotten.

I am not sure that this is such a good deal as all that. There is still a $1 billion loss.

[An hon. member]

Let’s ask the industry in Quebec about that.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I listened to the Prime Minister speak, and he should offer me the same courtesy.

On the question of Quebec’s share of the market, we were asking for more. I heard this afternoon that this was not achieved.

Will there be an export tax based on price fluctuations? The Prime Minister did not talk about this, but there was one in the agreement we knew, according to whether the price was above or below $360. Apparently there was a gain at $355. The fact remains that, at that point, a tax would be imposed. That is not what we call free trade.

I submit to you the following hypothesis. To the extent that the production cost, and hence the purchase cost for the Americans, is set at $355, and according to the Speech from the Throne and the numerous statements by the Minister of Finance on the need to boost the productivity of Canadian companies, then the $355 price will decrease. Indeed, as productivity rises, we reduce our production costs. These are very simple economic concepts, I would point out to the Minister of Transport: if productivity increases, the products are sold cheaper and more of them are bought. However, a tax would be imposed under the agreement we have seen today. But they are not talking about that. And that tells Carl Grenier, of the Free Trade Lumber Council, that this is the worst agreement in 25 years.

I cannot arrive at the same conclusions, since I have not read the agreement. So I will not reiterate his conclusions: I want to read it first. There is no question of my supporting someone who tells us it is the worst agreement, any more than I would support someone who tells us it is the best. I want to study all the aspects.

Companies had a gun to their head, they had no more resources; in no way do I blame them for accepting this. The industry is not to blame.

I have been saying for three years that the American strategy was very clear: it was to drag out the legal proceedings as long as possible, so that on the day of final defeat, the victors would no longer exist. That is exactly what the Americans have done. They have also bought a good many of the companies involved. I am thinking of Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. which has made multiple acquisitions all over Canada and Quebec.

So we cannot blame the companies, which had their backs to the wall, because there has been no loan guarantee policy for years—I blame the Liberals for that. That is what is needed: loan guarantees equivalent to the money confiscated so that the companies involved have enough cash flow to deal with the situation.

Companies had nothing left. That is when the agreements were reached that are below the rulings and below what could have been obtained. We will see when we read the agreement, but I maintain that businesses need to be compensated for this billion dollars.

In another negotiation with the Americans, through the policies of this government, companies lost a billion dollars, including $500 million that will be used to update U.S. companies and $500 million for rebuilding New Orleans after the hurricanes. This billion will be used.

I see that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport are saying no. If the Americans took $5 billion and gave back $4 billion, by quick calculation there is $1 billion missing. If they are not giving it back then they are keeping it. It might be simplistic logic, but it is quite obvious: there is a billion missing. It will be used to the benefit of U.S. companies, when even the NAFTA rulings do not allow the U.S. to keep that money. Nonetheless, this was accepted.

Furthermore, I predict future job losses. Regardless of this agreement, many older workers will be affected. This is true not only in this sector, but also in other industries such as textiles, clothing, furniture and bicycles. There is a way to use the existing World Trade Organization requirements. The previous government did nothing. I hope that this government will act. Only time will tell if any action will be taken.

Greater attention must also be paid to the dispute settlement mechanisms that exist in NAFTA. Rulings must not be repeatedly called into question under false pretenses. The government must address this issue to ensure that clear mechanisms are put in place to settle disputes with the Americans. This, I believe, is the government's responsibility.

Lastly, I would like to point out that I was here when the House voted in favour of NAFTA. The Bloc supported such an agreement. Quebec, as a whole, also supported it, including the unions.

[An hon. member]

Except for Parizeau.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That is possible, but others have opposed certain things in the past. However, I will not mention all of the examples of former colleagues of the Minister of Transport. Someone criticizes him everyday when they are face to face.

That said, if the minister could let me speak and refrain from taking his good old Liberal-style arrogant attitude, it would make things easier to understand.

The NAFTA mechanisms have ensured total free trade. This has just been denied. Those would supported NAFTA, who fought for it and voted in favour of it in the House, figured they would have an agreement ensuring that there would no longer be the kind of attitude we are seeing right now in the United States. The American protectionist legislation had to go. No more, people said. The thinking was that these panels could determine whether a given act was contrary to a treaty like NAFTA.

We used it, but that did not do us any good, because they did not respect it. In other words, the very object of the treaty is being frustrated by the Americans' attitude, and that is backed up by an agreement. I can see a big problem there.

We have a little time left. We will take the time to read the agreement, but it is imperative that we deal with the consequences, because seven years down the road, we could end up back where we were when the last agreement expired. The Americans grab a little more each time, but this time it is a chunk of at least a billion dollars that they are grabbing. That much we know.

As for the rest, we do not know much about it right now. We will take the time to read about it, but I have my doubts.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I put myself in the position of one of the workers who has been laid off in Smooth Rock Falls in northern Ontario. That worker is wondering what the impact of all of this is going to be on the community and on his or her family, a community that has lost 300 jobs in just the last week, with his or hers one of thousands of jobs that have been lost.

The most disturbing aspect of the statement we have just heard from the Prime Minister is that there was absolutely nothing said about what is going to happen to those workers and those communities where these decisions by the Americans, along with the fact that they were not resolved and addressed, have left them high and dry. It is an insult to those workers and those working families that their needs were not addressed today in the address from the Prime Minister. That is our first concern.

Our second concern is that an agreement that was supposed to provide fair and free trade between nations has not only been violated, but the violations have now been accepted by the Prime Minister of Canada. Indeed, he has attempted to wrap it up as a celebration day, as though we should now be happy that multinational corporations in the United States, completely in collaboration with the administration of the U.S., can impose illegal tariffs on Canadian products, and can fight every attempt to have them overturned by polite Canadians who go off to court time and again and who win time and time again, with multinational corporations meanwhile holding that money in the bank and continuing to charge these charges on any new product coming in, resulting in thousands of people being laid off.

Now we have a situation where the Government of Canada says that is okay and we are only going to ask Americans to give back 80¢ on the dollar. I can imagine the other industrial sectors now, despite the catcalls and the chirps from the members over there who of course do not want to hear the truth about this. They would rather not hear any criticism, I am sure. They would rather just hop up and applaud as NAFTA gets torn apart and as communities are left absolutely devastated by what has happened here. What we can imagine now are other major industries in North America, in the United States, taking a look and saying, “Guess what. We can take Canada on. We can slap on charges and duties. We can take all kinds of steps and it will take the Canadians years before they are willing to stand up, and when they do, they are only going to ask for some of the money back”. What a joke.

And it is despite this being in NAFTA itself. There is a mechanism, section 19 of NAFTA, which could have allowed us to say no, that all of the duties come back, that we are taking the kind of action that insists they all come back. Clearly that has not been the course for the government. It has not wanted to defend NAFTA and make it work for Canadians. That is the first conclusion we should draw.

Our national government has now left $1.3 billion of Canadians' money in the United States. The government has left it on the table. I can only imagine what the Prime Minister would be saying now if he were on the other side of the House. In fact, when he was on the other side of the House, he expressed every kind of outrage, and so did his caucus members, about money that belonged to the public being mistreated, whether it was by the former government or whether it was by the United States in these unfair and illegal tariffs. Every kind of moral outrage was brought forward by the Prime Minister to protest and now he has turned away from $1.3 billion. That money is not just abstract. It comes out of the very communities that right now have no employment.

Here is something worse. This deal will make it very unlikely that investment in Canadian industry is going to happen. Why? Because if we put investment into a mill we are going to make it more efficient and that is going to change the price of the product. That is why we do it, so that we can sell more, thus changing the very market conditions that our Prime Minister is so proud to have apparently stay the same.

This is one of the absurdities of what has been proposed here today, that we have to freeze-frame market conditions. The Prime Minister purports to have been at once upon a time an economist. I would like him to show me any market that had the same market conditions for any protracted period of time, for example, for seven years. We cannot find a case like that.

What the agreement apparently says, in the Prime Minister's own words, is that as long as there is no change in the market conditions, there will be no tariffs and quotas. In other words, there will be tariffs and quotas because markets always change and that is how markets work.

Anyone out there who is attempting to draw some solace from the words and the sugar-coated language and the thumbs up attitude of the Prime Minister better be ready to face the difficulties that are going to face this industry as a result of this agreement.

It is totally unacceptable to leave more than a billion dollars with the United States. We are being robbed of that money by the United States. It is as if a judge said it was acceptable to give back only 80% of the money stolen. As far as I am concerned, that is unacceptable.

Market conditions will change, as they do on all sorts of markets.

The Prime Minister should be straight with the people of Canada: there is no hope in the agreement that was signed, and we reject it. A great battle to protect our industry, our workers and their communities is to be expected.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to inform the House that because of the minister's statement, government orders will be extended by 35 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Federal Accountability Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague from Timmins just ended his speech when the prime ministerial speech began. Would it not be in order to go back to the questions and comments period that generally follows the regular speeches?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is anticipating the Chair, and I appreciate the good advice. Before ministerial statements, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay had finished his 10 minute statement. Now we are going to questions and comments. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I join with all my colleagues on both sides of the House in offering my appreciation to the member for the unfortunate fact of having his speaking time interrupted by the ministerial statement. It is appreciated for such an important announcement.

One of the things I have heard throughout my tenure, as a member of Parliament for some 13 years, is the deep respect that Canadians have for our Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. One thing I take a lot of pride in that is contained in the new federal accountability act is the increase in powers of the Auditor General's Office to dig deeper into different government departments. One of the complaints we had when we were in opposition was the fact that the previous prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard when he was finance minister, took it upon himself to stash away billions of dollars in foundations that were not accessible to the Auditor General in order for her to provide a proper degree of accounting and accountability.

My constituents have conveyed to me on many occasions the respect they have for the job the Auditor General does for us on behalf of Canadians. They look forward to the swift passage of the federal accountability bill so she will have even greater powers to ensure that not only this government but all successive governments following us will be held to a much higher standard. The bill would ensure that no departments or foundations would be out of the reach of the Auditor General to ensure that she could report back to Canadian taxpayers that they are getting proper value for their investment.

Would my colleague from the NDP comment on the increased role of the Auditor General under the FAA?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General definitely plays a very important role. However, I do have some concerns when we talk about accountability.

Accountability goes in two ways. For example, in the 1970s there was a diesel fuel spill in Attawapiskat, a community of 2,000 people in my riding. A family I know very well has been living on top of that spill. The woman has had three miscarriages. One of the children is developmentally delayed, we believe. The former Liberal government denied and denied. Study after study was done to establish whether there was a problem.

The school was contaminated and has since been condemned. No efforts were made by Indian affairs to move those students out. It was considered perfectly fine and acceptable for Cree children to go to school in a condemned environment. I was a school board trustee in Timmins and if there had been any problems in one of our schools, that school would have been shut down that weekend and fixed.

Here we are over six years later since the former Indian affairs minister Robert Nault came into that village and said the department would work with them toward a new school. There still is no new school. Nothing has been done. The community has actually gone to the banks themselves to get funds to build their own school because of the inaction of Indian affairs, year after year.

First nations have received capital study after capital study, interim report after interim report. Bureaucrats build these files on their desks. Communities are in debt, basically coming up with the infrastructure plans. What is needed is will. We never saw will on the James Bay until communities were crumbling in terrible deficits.

Yes, accountability goes both ways.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board has been saying in his questions throughout this debate that Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, must be passed quickly before we rise for the summer. It seems to me that setting a timetable in which parliamentarians have to deal with a very complex bill that touches consequentially on so many other bills is asking members not to be accountable in terms of doing their work, such as presupposing how many witnesses are necessary and what work we will have to do in order to pass it by the summer. Would the member agree with that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ethics is not something to be done tomorrow. Accountability is not voluntary. That is what we have heard year after year. Let us study this. Let us find out what we need to know. These are simple answers.

I will give an example, and I do not want to bring up names in the House. However, during the Dave Dingwall affair, what struck me was the disconnect between the House and what happens in real life. I had Miss Carol--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member.

We now resume debate. The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud as a parliamentarian to rise in this House today to debate accountability and ethics and especially to express my opinion on certain clauses in Bill C-2 which aim to make us responsible for our actions. However, as I do not yet have a lot of experience in matters of government, I looked at the points that are easier for the general public to grasp.

This is a huge bill. It contains 317 clauses. It amends some 40 acts and creates two new ones, namely the Conflict of Interest Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

Some of the clauses correct situations that have gone on for too long and that we have always criticized, such as the appointment of returning officers on the basis of merit. It is a very important clause, because there have been horror stories in this regard in the past. In the latest election, in the riding of Alfred-Pellan, which is next to mine, there were irregularities and a partisan returning officer. He boasted of being a friend of the Liberal candidate, having served as his organizer provincially and that payback was normal. It is important to have issues such as these addressed in this bill.

Some clauses go too far, such as the provision that whistleblowers could receive cash awards of up to $1,000. That would be rewarding someone for doing his or her duty. But it is important to protect whistleblowers, which should have been the case for Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gérard Lambert. They were fired by Health Canada in June 2004 because they criticized the approval process for drugs in general and in particular the approval process for growth hormones and antibiotics.

There was also the case of Pierre Blais who was fired a few years ago, also by Health Canada, because he would not stop expressing reservations about silicone breast implants. He wrote memos on that subject. He reviewed reports that expressed grave concerns about the safety of those breast implants and, sometime later, it was realized that he was right. The damage, however, had already been done. They would not listen to him and he was dismissed.

Nevertheless, we must not commit the monumental error of developing a culture of whistleblowing based on monetary incentives. Justice Gomery also made a plea for responsibility to be accepted at every level of the hierarchy. That approach will do more to prevent fraud than a culture of informers.

Let us not forget that when the parliamentary committee examined Bill C-11 on protection of whistleblowers it rejected the principle of paying them.

Finally, some clauses do not go far enough, for example, on the subject of appointments.

The bill proposes a public appointments commission within the Prime Minister’s portfolio, in particular to monitor the selection process for appointments. Most appointments come from the Privy Council Office or the PMO. Is this not a little like asking the fox to protect the chickens? It is rather strange

The Bloc Québécois is also concerned that the Prime Minister has nominated Gwyn Morgan, a fundraiser for the Conservative Party, to head the new public appointments commission. Mr. Morgan, who will receive only a token salary, will ensure that those who fill positions have the necessary qualifications. This commission is not really necessary.

Last year we denounced the fact that foundations escaped public scrutiny. This year, they are starting to be included in this bill. Unfortunately, many of them will continue to escape public scrutiny. I am quite concerned about this. We know that these foundations have a lot of money and billions of dollars are kept in reserve there. I believe it is important for all the foundations to be covered in Bill C-2.

The bill proposes that only three of the nine foundations be covered by the Access to Information Act. Yet, the Conservatives election platform announced that a Conservative government would “expand coverage of the act to all Crown corporations, officers of Parliament, foundations and organizations that spend taxpayers' money or perform public functions”.

Why then exempt the foundations that have received hundreds of millions of dollars? Barring the elimination of these foundations, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to no longer be able to exempt transfers to foundations from the Treasury Board policy. The Treasury Board prohibits payments from being made before the funds are needed. Furthermore, all the foundations should be covered by the Access to Information Act.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of Bill C-2. Nonetheless, major amendments will have to be made before the Bloc can give its approval.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, a number of colleagues have raised the issue of whistleblower protection in the House. I notice the member is supportive of the concept and the principle, as her party has been over the years.

This particular bill, the accountability act, would create an independent office with teeth. It would have the power to restore a whistleblower and to discipline an employer who has carried out a reprisal. Those powers did not exist under the previous Liberal government's bill, Bill C-11. Bill C-11 did not create those powers nor did it provide for them.

Furthermore, the accountability act would provide for a tribunal which would be comprised of, when needed, federal court judges who would hear these cases and have the power to act upon them. The whistleblower would then have the ability to appeal to a federal Court of Appeal.

These are solid legal protections for whistleblowers. They are totally independent from the executive branch of government. It is an unprecedented act of a government to relinquish this kind of authority and trust to an office of Parliament.

I wonder if the Bloc could confirm that they will support this ironclad protection for whistleblowers that the accountability act would provide.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, this colleague is quite young and he probably does not have a large family yet. Perhaps he does not know how a large family works. When you have to take care of several children and you want them to tell you the truth, it is not a good idea to offer them compensation for providing information on how their brothers and sisters are behaving. I think the same is true in business.

The Bloc does not doubt that Bill C-2 currently has some very interesting and very important aspects for protecting whistleblowers. We agree, that is true. However, the shortcoming is the suggestion of compensating people for blowing the whistle. That is not normal.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill C–4. On the Order: Government Orders:)

April 24, 2006--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-4, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act--the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform.