Debates of May 24th, 2013

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Securing the Human Rights of Coptic Christians in Egypt after the Arab Spring: A View from Canada’s Parliament”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 6th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 be concurred in.

It is with great interest and importance that we talk today about the report by the foreign affairs committee on the role of the private sector in international development.

We were talking earlier this morning about corruption and the importance of ensuring that when Canadian companies are doing their business abroad, there are tight rules on their operations abroad. Canada is quite involved in international business, and we need to look at how Canada conducts its affairs abroad.

In the report to the House, we were looking at the role of the private sector when it comes to international development. We had a dissenting opinion on the report. I will underline those points in a moment. Essentially, the government wanted to talk about how the private sector can be involved in international development.

On the surface, this is not a controversial issue. The problem is the way the government understands the issue. When it comes to international development and the involvement of the private sector abroad, we have seen some quite strange policy development by the government. This so-called innovation of the government of having NGOs work in tandem with mining companies is somehow seen as progressive. Most of us on this side see it as a throwback. It was done way in the past and is not seen as innovative by most of our partners.

When we talk about the role of the private sector in international development, to most enlightened people, it is about whose private sector it is. On this side, we believe that it is the host government's private sector we should be working with: small businesses, small entrepreneurs, and particularly women.

The U.K., the United States and other partners we have understand that if we are to get things moving, we need to work on the ground with people to ensure that the money we are investing gets to the right people.

It is timely that we are talking about this, because former Secretary General to the United Nations, Kofi Annan, just brought forward an important report on what is happening in the continent of Africa, which every parliamentarian should look at. He underlined that when we have developments in Africa, there is a lot of growth there. There is a lot of economic activity. What is happening, sadly, because of lack of proper governance and oversight, is that companies from other continents, and Canada is part of that, go in, and the money goes out. The money is not staying there. That is what Mr. Annan pointed out.

We have to open the data and look beyond growth numbers. Sadly, countries are stagnant in terms of growth and the basic indicators of human health.

We see economic activity. We see a lot of profits being taken out of the continent, but not benefits to the people there. That is why it is so important, if we are to look at the private sector's involvement in international development, to better understand who the actors are.

When the government puts forward policies to support mining companies and fund NGOs to work side by side with mining companies, we have to understand the role of the private sector. As one witness at our committee said, it is about whose private sector. Is it the private sector of Canada we are trying to help, or is it the private sector of the host governments in those developing countries we are trying to support?

These are the key recommendations.

CIDA should emphasize economic growth in its overall development strategy. That is not controversial.

CIDA should develop a specific policy for including the private sector in its development strategy. On the surface, that is not controversial, as long as we understand the issue I just talked about.

CIDA should pursue loans and partnerships with private companies. We would have to look into that a bit.

Encourage CSR and democratic oversight in countries with significant natural resource sectors. This is the part on which we had a debate with the government. It is not strong enough. The corporate social responsibility provisions of the government are weak. It is being noticed. In fact, it is undermining Canada's credibility in the world.

This morning, when I was talking about the bill from the Senate, ironically, about corruption, I mentioned that it was absolutely critical that Parliament understand that we are falling behind. I referred to the 2011 report of Transparency International that showed that Canada is dead last when it comes to transparency and corruption. We need to move ahead.

The government is living in the past. It is living in the past, because it does not understand that when we are doing our work overseas, we should at least, at a minimum, follow the same laws we have here in Canada. That is not the case for the government. The government thinks we can live in the past such that when we go abroad, we can go by other rules.

There is a basic fairness principle here. When our corporations are doing their business abroad, they should at least follow the same rules we follow here. I know some will say that it is different when we go abroad. There is a different cultural understanding. I would submit that this is old thinking. That is the past. Sadly, the government is stuck in the past.

People now are saying that we have to be totally transparent about what our companies are doing abroad. Guess who is saying this? Just recently, the sherpa for the United Kingdom wanted to see what was happening here in Canada. At the G8, one of the priorities for Prime Minister Cameron is transparency.

Industry right now is saying that we should move forward in ensuring that the EITI is strengthened and that there is full transparency of Canadian businesses abroad. That is the mining sector. They are on board, and they are wondering why the government is not on board. When are we going to have Canadian companies, working on development projects or not, that are actually absolutely transparent? We are laggards on this, and the government knows it.

Why does it not embrace transparency, embrace what is called the sunshine bill we will be talking about later today. At times, we will hear the government talking about being innovative and looking to the future. However, the government is actually looking in the rear-view mirror.

We talked about the role of the private sector in committee and heard from witnesses. Our dissenting report was very clear. It said that economic growth is essential for sustainable poverty reduction but that all economic growth does not necessarily lead to poverty reduction.

Let me open that up a bit. Kofi Annan's report was clear. Investors invest and do business in particular regions. Unless there is investment in people on the ground—helping with training, helping with governance, helping create the conditions for sustainable economic activity—there will not be the growth we want to see.

We will see profits grow, but not per capita income or, most importantly, things like life expectancy and child mortality. If we simply look at the numbers and profits of certain companies or GDP growth, that will indicate economic activity and growth for some, but not necessarily sustainable and resilient growth. We took issue with that. We have to understand economic growth as being sustainable and focused on poverty reduction.

During the study, no CIDA officials testified about existing private sector or sustainable growth policies. Let us put this in context. We had a study. It was the government's idea. It was about the role of the private sector in development. We were quite surprised that no CIDA officials testified that the existing private sector or sustainable growth policies were working. Nor did the report, from the government side, refer to the policies on sustainability.

That is strange, because it is a guiding principle. Even the government's own mandate with CIDA is that we look at sustainable economic growth. Despite that, there was no evidence brought forward at committee to support CIDA's work with the private sector as being sustainable or not. If we are actually going to go down this path, we had better bring along the principles and values that are inherent within CIDA.

The other interesting aspect is Canada's international development. There is legislation that guides us, or that the government should be guided by, that looks foremost at poverty reduction. That is under the ODA Act. It is the legislation that this House passed, and it says that poverty reduction is to be the centrepiece for CIDA's work. If we do not understand that the private sector's role is to help with poverty reduction, if we do not bring forward witnesses to talk about that and if we do not have people within the department who are able to come forward and underline that argument, we have to question the government's understanding of the issue. That is why we had the dissenting report and why we said to go back to the key core principles of the ODA Act when looking at private sector development.

As I said, we have no problem with the private sector being involved in development, but we have to make sure that it is in line with the values, the principles and the law that Parliament passed.

I think there is a resistance when it comes to looking at innovation with regard to private sector involvement in development. It is interesting, because the government's rhetoric would suggest that it actually understands the situation, but when we look at its actions—and that is always what we have to look at when it comes to politicians—we have to understand that if we are going to work with the private sector on the ground, they need a number of things.

The first is help with things like governance. They also need to have help with training. They need help with education, obviously, and with infrastructure, absolutely. Over here on this side of the House, we are very big on the role of women. If we want to see economic change and sustainable change happen, we should focus on women as a starting point. That will actually help in changing people's economic circumstances and with sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, you have travelled quite a bit, and some of us have also seen the good work that is done when investments are made in small projects and small enterprises and small businesses and the investments are focused on women. My goodness, the leverage from that approach is tremendous, yet the government did not understand that. It was looking at big Canadian companies as the ones to invest in when it comes to the private sector and development. There is a lack of understanding and there is a sense of the government living in the past on this issue, and we took a different point of view.

We also said that most of the recommendations contained in the committee's report do not really reflect the evidence we heard in the study.

This was surprising for me. I have been here for a number of years, and usually the government brings forward issues that it wants to get in front of the committee. That is the situation all our committees find themselves in these days: all the studies are started by the government. That is a sad case indeed.

In this case we thought that the government was going to have all of its witnesses lined up so that they would support the government's intent. It was really interesting, because many of the witnesses called by the government either contradicted the government or did not bring their evidence forward in the recommendations.

Let me give the House some examples. Transparency International focused on how critical it is that the Canadian government adopt the transparency initiatives that we are going to see at the G8. That was not in here, and we do not see it from the government. The government is probably going to speak against the private member's bill from my colleague from the Liberal Party today. It will find a reason. The government will just say that it is against it.

That was actually evidence in the testimony that we heard from witnesses, and it is not in here. Most Canadians would ask why we would not want to have absolute transparency for Canadian private sector players when they are working on international development abroad. That is just straight up: why would we not want to do that? It is not in here, yet there was evidence from government witnesses to that effect.

Another one was what we heard from our friends in the United States. They were very clear that investing in the private sector of the host countries is what is important; it is not about supporting Canadian private sector companies in developing countries. Again, the government thought it was going to hear our friends from south of the border say how great the government's program is in supporting Canadian corporations in developing countries. No; Ms. Clinton has been very innovative on this issue and has got things going on changing things in the Unites States, and witnesses said they invest in people on the ground in the private sector in those countries and benefit them. After all, it is international development we are talking about, not corporate welfare.

The fact is that we had testimony from government witnesses that contradicted the wishes of the government, so the report from the government side actually leaves out the recommendations from their witnesses, including their friends south of the border and including transparency. Ours certainly included it.

What we were left with I found very strange. I guess there were some problems in issue management, which was a bit of a surprise. I thought it had nailed this issue down.

I think it is indicative of the government, because we often see that the government does not communicate with professionals in the public service. We have this so-called innovation in policy, the “innovation” of having NGOs working side by side with the private sector and supporting them, but when I asked where it came from, it was not from the department. No one in the country could come up with where this policy came from.

It came from the ideology of the government, I suspect, and that is what is problematic. If professionals work in a department, be it in the Department of Foreign Affairs or CIDA, the government should actually talk to them to find out what they think. Can we imagine that? These are people we pay and rely on, and Canadians would find it shocking that government would not engage with them for policy innovation.

We on this side think that is the role of the public service. Certainly in the case of CIDA, government should talk to them to find out what they think would be good ideas. Maybe then the government would not have this bizarre outcome of a report that does not reflect the evidence that was provided at committee. We certainly made sure that the dissenting report reflected and captured the witnesses' testimony.

On this side we believe absolutely that we should invest in the private sector and ensure that Canadian dollars are going to be invested in innovation. We should make sure the focus is on women and small businesses, that the private sector investment in development is done in a transparent way and that it is aligned with the goals in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act that Parliament passed. The government did not do that, and that is why New Democrats put this into the dissenting report.

If people are on the ground right now in a country like the DRC—and I was just talking to a group of people setting off to go to east Congo—they will see one of the richest countries in the world, but it is the paradox of the plenty, because when people go there, they will see that the riches of that country are being used against the very people who live there.

Let me explain that. A war has been going on since the late 1990s. Five million people have been killed, and the resources there are being used to fuel the conflict. We need to strengthen corporate social responsibility to ensure, for example, that conflict minerals are not entering the supply chain and being used to fund the conflict there. Our government should do more to focus on transparency and not just say we should support Canadian companies abroad.

Let us support the companies that are actually trying to help the countries where they are located. Let us make sure we help women, let us make sure there is transparency, and let us get this right.

That is why New Democrats had a dissenting report and that is the difference between us and the government. It is living in the past; we want to embrace the future, and that is why we will change things if we are elected.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the comments, but I do not think he could have sat through the same interventions I did in that committee.

We listened to the Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, from the United Kingdom, who said:

[I]t is wealth creation, jobs and livelihoods above all which will help poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. Aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

We also heard from Carlo Dade when he was talking about Haiti. First of all, he talked about remittances that were going back to Haiti and development money that was going in. He said:

So for over a decade now, the private sector has been the largest funder of development activities, broadly defined.

We have a number of partnerships with the mining community in Africa. I have been very privileged to see IAMGOLD in Burkina Faso and the things going on there. In fact, the Burkina Faso High Commissioner said to us in one of our committee interventions that Burkina Faso needs help training workers and building human resources and that Canadian companies can help with that.

Why is the NDP so opposed to free enterprise and helping people in these developing countries get the jobs they need and develop the job skills that are going to help them move forward?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her point of view. However, I do not think she understands that what we are talking about here is innovation. What she is talking about is an old-school way of development.

The old school was basically this: A company from one's country sets up shop and brings in some ancillary resources to help. It looks good and has signature projects. That is far in the past. Everyone is looking at the new model of transparency. That is why I say the Conservatives are stuck in the past.

Every one of those witnesses, including the ones the member referred to, especially from the U.K., were saying to get on board with the EITI and full transparency of Canadian companies that are doing business abroad. The Conservative are not there yet. Hopefully they will be by the time we have the meetings in England. Right now, in Sydney, Australia, they will be talking about strengthening EITI.

Do members know who has been called out on this by the G8? I recommend that everyone here, specifically the parliamentary secretary, read about what have been described as the two outliers on EITI and strengthening transparency in the G8. They are Russia and Canada. Is that what we want? Do we want to be seen as laggards?

We should be leading in this, which is why, on this one, I am afraid that the parliamentary secretary and the government are out of touch with present circumstances.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague said is absolutely true. This government is completely out of touch with reality.

My colleague also said that we must work with companies in developing countries. We also know that the Americans are working with companies in every country.

Does the hon. member think that the government's approach is too narrow? Is the government attempting to give the Minister of International Trade access to foreign aid money?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a little bit of debate, as much as one can have these days in this Parliament, about the merging of different departments. I say that in sadness, because we had a couple of meetings to talk about the merging of CIDA with DFAIT, which, as we have said, could be a great idea.It is about who does it.

Who is going to influence whom here? Is it going to be CIDA officials, who have expertise in CSR, affecting trade folks with their expertise there? Ideally, there should be some sharing going on.

What our friends south of the border and in the U.K. have noticed is that to be serious about development, it should be aligned with foreign policy, and the foreign policy should be in line with things such as human rights and democratic development. However, the Conservative government has not done that, which is its biggest challenge.

When we see this new merging of these departments, it is about whose voice is going to be heard the most and who will be influencing whom. At the end of the day, it will be about people, I gather. However, structurally, this is something we should be looking at.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned the need for leadership, and I agree. I would like to commend him on the leadership he is showing on this motion. Subject to thinking it through carefully, I intend to support it, and I hope that all the members of the House, from all parties, will take a serious look at it. It is very thoughtful and it makes sense to me. I congratulate him for submitting it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the dissenting opinion we had on this. If we look at best practices in the world, and we look at what we are facing with a multipolar world where the BRIC countries are more and more going to be influencing the world economy, we have to get on with innovation and stop living in the past. As I said with regard to the current government, the Conservatives are living in the past. We have to embrace things like transparency and best practices. That is what we put into this report with the dissenting opinion.

It could have been that we heard things differently, or perhaps it was the analysis we took from the witnesses we heard, but what we heard was that it is clear that everyone is getting on board with innovations and ensuring that when we are talking about development we have goals in mind. It should not be just about the benefit for Canadian companies; it should be about the benefit for the people we are trying to help. It is that simple. The policies of the current government actually undermine that, which is strange because it undermines the legislation we passed here, the ODA Accountability Act.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from foreign affairs. He talked about speaking with one voice, and realigning our development dollars with our foreign affairs policy would help us speak with one voice from the Government of Canada. We believe this would be beneficial to everyone we speak to, whether it is our foreign policy with our embassies, or our international development dollars.

We are looking at new ways of doing things. We are looking at innovation and at new technologies. We are in a partnership with WUSC, which is World University Service of Canada, and Rio Tinto, in Ghana, for example, to ensure that people in Ghana are getting job skills to take to the marketplace.

I will also speak to the report again. We had new technologies presented to us, and Citigroup was one company that came to talk to us. Its representatives spoke about how the private sector is partnering to allow remittances to get from the diaspora into their countries of origin and how they are using opportunities for these new technologies to be the pay mechanisms for people who are now earning real incomes in real jobs.

Therefore, my question for my colleague is this. Why does he want to keep people in the past and not allow people in these emerging economies to develop the skills that they can take into the broader job market?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I underlined this point. I do not think their policy is actually dealing with the present reality and looking to the future. It is in the past.

I will give an example. As I mentioned at the end of my speech, I was talking to a group that is going to the east of Congo to look at what is happening on the ground. Instead of kids the age of your children, Mr. Speaker, working in mines to extract coltan so we can have it in our cell phones, which is feeding the war there, we want to see a change, to invest in a clean supply chain, just like we did with blood diamonds. That is innovation. That is helping deal with the conflict. That is helping deal with the outcomes for these kids who are becoming child soldiers. They are living under horrific conditions that all of our kids should never even have to contemplate. That is what is happening there.

I am sorry, but Rio Tinto is not going to go there. What is in it for them? If it were a business decision, they would not go there. What happens if a region does not have a Rio Tinto? Are we going to forget about it? Is that what we are talking about here?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the debate is deemed adjourned. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House will now resume the remaining business under routine proceedings.

Sex Selection

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a total of 11 petitions, nine of which call upon members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination.

Tariff Elimination

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon members to request the government to immediately amend the tariff elimination list to include the 13% on bicycles.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa in order to allow proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.

Public Safety

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with hundreds of signatures concerning the deportation order issued against Jose Figueroa. Mr. Figueroa was a member of the FMLN, a governing party in El Salvador in the mid-eighties. The FMLN is the current ruling party in El Salvador and recognized internationally and by Canada as a democratically elected government.

CBSA and the Minister of Public Safety have ruled that he was engaged in terrorism or subversion, based solely on Mr. Figueroa's affiliation with the FMLN. The current Minister of the Environment represented Canada at the inauguration of the president of FMLN in 2009. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Public Safety to intervene in this case because the charges against Mr. Figueroa are unfounded and contradict Canada's position on the FMLN. They also call upon the government to recognize that the FMLN is a legitimate and representative political party and has been since its inception in 1980.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I carry on, I would remind all hon. members that when they present a petition a brief explanation may be required, but a lengthy reading of the petition itself is not necessary.

Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today, collected by constituent Mena Khan and signed by residents throughout the Mount Royal riding and beyond, calling on the government to undertake a set of comprehensive measures to address the serious problem of bullying. In particular, the petitioners are calling for a royal commission to study bullying and the victimization of students, including examining how the Criminal Code of Canada and the Youth Criminal Justice Act apply in the context of bullying, while co-operating with provincial, territorial and municipal partners to address this issue.

I share the constituents' concern that bullying is a grave and serious issue that must be addressed by this Parliament with all deliberate speed, and I eagerly await the government's response and detailed plan as to how it will address the scourge of bullying that impacts on so many Canadians.

Sex Selection

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present three petitions, one from the Church of St. Mark in Mississauga South, and the other two from areas in the greater Toronto area, with hundreds of signatures. All three petitions call for the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination. I am pleased to table these three petitions.

The Environment

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition that asks to restore the Great Lakes water levels. Since 1999, the water levels in Lake Huron have dropped considerably. Given the recent events around Manitoulin Island and Tobermory with the Chi-Cheemaun Ferry, we know how devastating the levels of the Great Lakes have been impacted. Many businesses have lost some money because of this delay. The petitioners request that the Canadian federal Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of Transport increase their efforts significantly to halt the reversal of ongoing loss of water in the Great Lakes.

Search and Rescue

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am adding to the thousands of petitions that I have already tabled in the House on the issue of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base. Vancouverites ask for the government to rescind the closure of Kitsilano Coast Guard base because the new base at Sea Island will increase the response time by 30 minutes. Indeed, two persons have died. The petitioners wish to suggest that this will continue to put lives at risk and needs to be rescinded. I am tabling 350 petitions today.

Public Safety

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. In the first one the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to encourage mandatory criminal background checks for entertainers working with children, the elderly and the vulnerable.

Sex Selection

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from people all across the country, who call on Parliament to support Motion No. 408 and condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy.

Elections Canada

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today signed by residents of Winnipeg who have expressed concerns regarding the integrity of our election process. They state that it is at stake and Elections Canada must have the power to properly investigate individuals, political parties and other stakeholders who may have attempted, in particular, to corrupt the last federal election.

The petitioners call upon members of Parliament to immediately enact legislation that would give Elections Canada the ability to restore public confidence in Canada's electoral process.

Experimental Lakes Area

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive hundreds of petitions from residents of Winnipeg who are still hopeful that the government will reverse its decision and continue to fund the Experimental Lakes Area due to the important scientific function it has done for half a century and should do for another half a century.

Impaired Driving

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward today petitions from fellow British Columbians.

The petitioners acknowledge the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. In the interest of public safety, the petitioners want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

The petitioners also want the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.