Bev Desjarlais

[Infrastructure, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted publicly that the so-called green infrastructure program is not sufficient. The green infrastructure program requires cash strapped provinces and municipalities to put up two-thirds of the money. As a result, some provinces are not accessing the funds.

Will the government commit to an infrastructure program that is not tied to matched funds from the municipalities and provinces?

[Infrastructure, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Over the last six years the Liberal government has cut $3.6 billion out of rural economies through the elimination of the Crow benefit alone. The Liberal legacy in rural Canada is crumbling roads, farm closures and tainted water.

Europe and the U.S. care about their agricultural communities. They invest in their infrastructure and value added economies. Will the minister tell the House why the infrastructure program is putting less funding back into rural Canada than the Liberal government has cut?

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to say with pride that Mr. Mercredi is originally from my riding. His parents live in my riding. As well, the former grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, was from my riding. I mention that to give some indication of the type of riding I have the pleasure of representing.

Residents of my riding have the benefit of knowing that two of their members have gone on to represent the first nations people of Canada. As a result, I think the people of the riding have benefited.

With regard to the treatment of first nations people, there is no question that it has been absolutely terrible. I grew up in Lebret, a very tiny community in southern Saskatchewan, which had a residential school. In my years of living there I hardly knew a child who attended that school because it was in a segregated area. A lot of aboriginal people lived in the community where I grew up, so I believe I have an understanding of the situations that first nations people live through.

My father actually managed one of what were called the Indian and Metis farms in Saskatchewan. I had the opportunity to see the differences when first nations people are given the opportunity for employment, the differences that can take place in their lives and their children's lives for years to come.

A number of families that had the opportunity to work on farms or at other jobs and to be paid fairly and to live in adequate housing have gone on to see their children educated. Many of those children have become productive people within our country.

We have failed in a lot of areas. Those farms were not the norm. There was the odd one here and there throughout Canada, though I only know of the ones in Saskatchewan. We have failed to give economic opportunities to first nations people. It is very hard to do that on the type of reserve system we have. It will take a lot of years to change that system but those changes will never happen if we do not put enough dollars into proper housing, into proper sewers and water and into schools that are big enough to hold the number of students in them.

A lot of schools in my riding were built to hold only so many children and they probably need room for another hundred. Those children do not have the opportunity of going five miles down the road to the next farming community to go to another school. Most of the reserves are off somewhere so they try to cram people into the schools in order to give them the educational opportunities.

The government must be seriously committed to following through on the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples and to putting enough dollars into housing. Anybody who thinks for one second that first nations people do not look after their housing should know that they get the bare minimum standard of housing. Their houses in no way compare to the houses we have in our communities. Their houses would never have been allowed in our communities.

The communities do not have adequate firefighting services and the firefighting services it does have is paid for through its global budgets. When I hear Alliance members talk about wasted dollars in first nations communities, I would suggest to them that if their municipalities had to do everything aboriginal communities had to do with their dollars they would be here screaming and hollering too.

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of my riding, it was not an extremely close vote like the Kanesatake vote. It was the questioning as to the process, directed under Indian affairs. A lot of the problems over the years have been because it has been directed by Indian affairs.

We have had years and years of policy and implementation of different processes under Indian affairs. As a result, the first nations people have not had the same opportunities we have. Non-aboriginal people may not vote throughout Canada, but none of them can ever argue with the fact that they have opportunities for education, economic opportunities and to be with their families, in most cases year after year. They do not have the history of first nations people who have been taken from their homes or children have been taken away from their parents.

First nations people have not had the opportunity to evolve as a society and as a nation the same way we have because they were under the thumb of the government. They lost a lot of years of evolving through what I consider a democratic process.

I firmly hope that each and every first nation will accept, over time, the democratic system in Canada, because quite frankly I am happy with it. I would suggest that something like proportional representation is a better route to go within our election system. I would prefer if we are going to have a Senate that it be elected, but the bottom line is we can make those decisions.

We need to give first nations people the very same opportunities we have all had. We need to give them the opportunity to fail as well as succeed. If they happen to fail in some instances, it does not mean the process is wrong and it does not mean they do not have the right. They just need the same time and the same opportunities we have had to evolve through a process of forming their society as they would like to form it.

[Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on behalf of our party's critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who spoke at length on the bill. I will at points reflect upon the comments he previously made.

I will emphasize exactly what the bill is about, because unless one happened to be part of the standing committee on aboriginal affairs or was somehow involved with the Senate discussions, we in the House really did not hear a whole lot about it. This is really somewhat of a shame considering its major achievement. It is truly a major achievement in Canadian history to see this type of bill come forth. It reflects the true interests of the people of Kanesatake and of process taken, which started some time ago.

At this time I want to congratulate Chief James Gabriel and the people of Kanesatake for their efforts and their work. I also want to congratulate all those who made a point of taking part in the voting process. We heard the numbers earlier. If I heard them correctly, I think it was 237 to 239, although I may be a little off. However, when I heard them I was really quite impressed because it shows that the people did care.

At this point I want to comment on a problem I think we have within the House, which relates to the situation of voting, and sometimes the misunderstandings we have in the communities. It is inherent upon us as a House, when we are talking about issues that pertain to specific first nations communities, to acknowledge that all people in those communities do not have the same opportunity of education and economic opportunities. As a result they cannot always get to Ottawa or to other places to get their points across. It is inherent on us, when dealing with a specific first nation, to make the point of taking our hearings into those communities. That is what we should do as a parliament.

I did not go through this process in my community on an issue that pertained to specific bands in my riding, which was northern flood agreement. With all my heart and soul I wanted us to hold those meetings there or at least have our hearings videotaped, so the people in the communities could be a part of the process. What is more important is that we hold the meetings so that all people in the communities have the opportunity to come out, voice their opinions and to make an informed decision.

When we have a vote of 237 to 239, we should never have any question about someone not having all the information. We should recognize the vote was taken and the decision was made. I do not always like the outcome of elections, especially close calls. If I had my druthers, the mix in the House would be a whole lot different. The bottom line is I accept the process of having elections. A vote takes place and one accepts the result. One can fight against the parts disagreed with and support those that are good for the people.

Recognizing that the vote indicated the support of the chief, the council and those people who wanted that process in Kanesatake, we should also support it. As a parliament we need to support the bill. I would love to see it supported unanimously in the House as a show of acknowledgement to first nations people that we respect their right of decision.

As indicated, the bill will not put the first nation of Kanesatake under the Indian Act. The people of Kanesatake will have a separate process in place for their community. Because of their unique position, they have had some opportunities that other first nations have not. They have had the opportunity of not being totally under the thumb of the government. This has given them an opportunity to expand in areas where other first nations people could not. We see that independence in their decision making.

One of the areas noted, which was instrumental in putting the extra push to the bill, was the issue of the land use. The people in that area did not have an opportunity to make a decision on what they wanted for their area. That was the additional incentive to push for this. They wanted control over what was happening with their land, while recognizing that the environmental laws of Canada would still fall into place and be in force in Kanesatake. However, they would be able to use the land as they wished.

At this point I would like to tie the issue of wanting control over their land to what happens with the land in Canada, if we do not make sure that we stay in control of it under free trade agreements. A very instrumental first nations leader from, I believe, Manitoba made a comment one time that trade agreements would make Indians of us all because we would not have control of it.

The fight that the people of Kanesatake have had has just emphasized that even more for me. They did not have control over their land and needed to make sure they put rules and legislation in place that would give them that right. I want us to pay attention to the words of that aboriginal leader who said trade agreements would make Indians of everybody and that we should see the struggles that they had. That will be us in the years to come if we do not make sure we as Canadians have control over our land.

I would like to impress upon the minister that point, but certainly more on his government. I would like to commend him for the process on the bill and encourage him.

When he was making his comments he spoke of his new initiative with the first nations peoples. He and I both know that the first nations leaders in Manitoba are not acceptant of his process. I would like to emphasize to him that they have good reason not to be acceptant. This process was dumped on them with the suggestion that this was the way we were going to do it, once again without the involvement of those first nations leaders. They were not happy about that.

Again, I do not like the outcomes of all the elections sometimes, but the bottom line is I accept that in first nations communities, even though there is unhappiness sometimes over the outcomes of them, and I impress this upon my colleagues from the Alliance, the point is chiefs in council for the most part are elected. When they are elected we must give them the right to make the decisions for their people. If the chiefs in Manitoba are not acceptant of the process, then I suggest to the minister that he needs to consult with them to make sure the process which will take place is one that they are okay with. I do not think that has happened.

I have nothing but good results in my discussions with the chiefs in Manitoba, certainly with the first nations communities in my riding. There is good and bad, we do not always agree but that is life. I have my thoughts and they have theirs, but they represent the people of their first nations. I acknowledge that and so should the minister. He needs to acknowledge that this is the position they want to take. It is their first nations communities and he really needs to take that into consideration.

I will not go into all the intricacies of the bill. That has been done a number of times. I do not think we want to delay the process. I know the people in Kanesatake want the bill to go through. We in the New Democratic Party want it to go through. We support it and I would encourage all my colleagues in the House to show respect for the first nations people who have made the decision on the process they want to take. Members should acknowledge that with a show of respect by supporting the decision they have made.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I actually recall questions in the House that were specifically on the issue the hon. member asks about.

If we were listening to the answers from the government we would say yes, there was a commitment that it would clean up these areas. My understanding is that very few of those areas have been cleaned up.

To go back to the situation in first nations communities, there were diesel powered generators in a lot of the communities for the nursing stations and schools. Over the years there were huge diesel spills in those areas that affected the health of the first nations people. In some cases schools or nursing stations were moved. In other cases they were not. In most cases areas affected by diesel spills were not cleaned up. The hazards are still within the first nations communities. There are affected communities in my riding. They are attempting to continue their fight with the federal government to get it to pay for the cleanups.

Certainly the federal government has not been strong in following through on its comments about cleaning up its environmental messes.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Within the Churchill riding in Manitoba I actually have more than half the first nations in Manitoba. I have been to all 31 of their communities. Over my years living in northern Manitoba I knew many of the problems those communities faced. As their member of parliament I have had the opportunity to view firsthand the situations they live in.

We often hear members of the House criticize why first nations live in such conditions. The people in those communities do not want to live like that. That was not the bargain they made with the Government of Canada when they made a decision to share the land and in return receive certain benefits from the government.

They do not get specific funding to ensure that they have water and sewer services in every house. They do not get specific funding to ensure that they will have fire hydrants in their communities. The amount of funding for housing for all first nation members is so limited that we see literally a third of their populations leaving their communities because they do not have houses to live in.

Although we will hear great criticism of why first nations people live like they do, the criticism should be directed at the governments of Canada which over past number of years have not sufficiently supported first nations people.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize, as the hon. member for Dartmouth mentioned, that the New Democratic Party is opposed to the bill and intends to vote against it. Hopefully there can be some improvements to the bill somewhere along the line, even though it is becoming clearer to most of us that the Liberal government does not follow through on its talk of being there to protect the environment and to do what is best for Canada. I doubt we will see those changes and certainly there need to be changes.

To follow on what my hon. colleague said, public services like clean water, effective waste disposal, diversion, good roads and accessible public transit are essential to strong, healthy communities. By the 1990s Canada was investing just 2.1% of its gross domestic product in public infrastructure. That was about half of what was spent throughout the 1960s and 1970s. We have had two decades of neglect. This has meant poorer public services resulting in major problems like poor water quality, pollution, and a $75 billion deficit in municipal and environmental infrastructure.

No one group has suffered more from the neglect than Canada's first nations people. We heard of the situations with water in Walkerton and North Battleford. There was little emphasis on the number of first nations communities that have boil water mandates in place on an ongoing basis. Many Canadians do not know that although there were standards in place for water treatment in communities throughout Canada, the government and the first nations communities never bypassed the bare minimum standard for anything in first nations communities. Whether it be water, sewer or housing, bar none the bare minimum standard was met. We know what happens when only the bare minimum standard is met. That is exactly what they get. As a result, with little money going into the infrastructure we have seen even greater problems in those communities.

The occurrences of stomach and gastrointestinal problems that we hear about in non-aboriginal communities are ongoing issues in first nation communities. They struggle and fight with the government to put in place ongoing funding for these programs so they do not have to go to the government. I hate to say it, but often immediately before an election the government says it will do something and then right after the election we see many communities having to go on bended knees begging the government for what should be rightfully theirs in the first place, which is quality water and sewer infrastructure and quality housing.

Ecologists warn that without major new investment and a national approach to water quality, access to freshwater will soon become Canada's worst environmental crisis. Significant public and private investments are also needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and cut back the release of waste into the environment.

Too many corporations have opposed efforts to deal with these pressing issues. The Liberals have listened to corporate Canada, ignoring the fact that no economy or society can exist independently of the environment. The Liberals have made no progress in developing a sustainable economy for Canadians.

We know the Liberals have listened to corporate Canada. We also know and fear the fact that our Prime Minister is now listening to the American president and vice-president saying they want more energy resources from Canada instead of the U.S. addressing its problems of overconsumption, greed and misusing energy when it should be putting into place conservation processes. We see our government buckling under to the U.S.

We all wants jobs and economic prosperity, but we also want to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. With leadership from the federal government working families can have both environmental and economic security. New Democrats believe Canada needs a new commitment to rebuilding our publicly owned and operated infrastructure.

The NDP has called for a multi-year national environmental infrastructure investment program to channel investment into pressing environmental concerns like water and air quality, toxic waste disposal, energy efficiency and the clean up of environmental hot spots.

A national environmental investment and infrastructure program could be used for the set up of a clean water fund to upgrade municipal water and waste water treatment plants to improve water quality, water conservation and effluent management. We cannot have another Walkerton.

We could clean up toxic hot spots like the Sydney tar ponds and the sites of the Great Lakes. I know my colleague mentioned this as well, but a number of colleagues from that area of the country over the past three or four years have constantly pushed and fought for the clean up of the Sydney tar ponds. This has made me realize just how terrible are the Sydney tar ponds. When hearing about it on a daily basis and getting all the background on it, we realize that this is a government-company sponsored environmental wasteland with no serious effort to clean it up.

The sad part is there is real concern it cannot even be cleaned up now. The least we should be doing is getting the people whose health is at risk out of that area. That is why Elizabeth May has been on a hunger strike for the past two weeks. The government has failed to address the issue of getting those families out of there. Instead it puts their health at risk.

The national environmental investment infrastructure program could renew efforts to achieve short term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of the Liberals' abandonment of commitments it made at Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.

We could set up a clean air fund to back community based initiatives that reconcile job creation with the challenge posted by climate change. The fund would be used for tree planting, alternative energy and transition programs for workers displaced by actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We could support expansion and encourage greater use of public transit. We could put mandatory limits on sulphur content in gasoline.

We could change the federal tax system to ensure that tax policies encourage a more sustainable economy. Taxes should be reduced on sustainable activities, particularly those that involve a greater investment in labour and an increase in non-sustainable activities.

We could create a jobs fund to provide loan security for the cost of retrofitting residential, commercial and industrial buildings to meet higher standards of energy efficiency and make greater use of energy from alternative sources, resulting in reduced greenhouse emissions and lower costs. We could improve recycling, composting and recovery systems to improve the diversion of household and commercial industrial waste.

This fund could encourage dynamic environmental industries and the development of new environmental technology. We could invest as a partner in integrated and co-ordinated affordable public transit and commuter rail service in and around major urban centres. This would be part of a national transportation strategy.

Often we are criticized as New Democrats for thinking about the environment too much, for not considering the cost. I say we can never think about the environment too much. We can never put too much into the environment.

We have shown today that the cost savings are there. This is an economical opportunity for Canada. It is an opportunity for jobs, but even more so it is an opportunity to continue having the country we have now with a relatively decent environment and relatively clean air. We have some bad spots, but we have a country of which to be proud, a country to which people from all over the world want to come.

A young woman from Mexico attending university in Ottawa commented to me that it was nice to have her children go outside and play and not have to worry about their health because of the air. We have a clean environment to offer people of the world. Let us continue to offer it to them by making sure that we protect it. Let us fix the legislation and toughen it up instead of watering it down like the Liberals have done.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that a majority of people would agree with that. My colleague and I and the rest of our caucus went to Quebec City to the people's summit because there were concerns over trade issues and the way huge corporations were starting to control the political agenda and the legislation in numerous countries.

The legislation would protect people and give them information. Our party believes that individuals should be allowed to decide. They should be given the information on which to decide about an issue such as genetically modified foods.

If there is nothing to fear, the information should be put on the label and individuals should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to take that chance. The same applies to buying products made in other countries where maybe the labour standards are not up to snuff.

We know there is a problem in Indonesia so we do not make a decision to stop buying coffee there. However we will not buy coffee from Indonesia if we know that its farmers are not being treated fairly or that someone is running roughshod over the people and violating human rights.

We are not jeopardizing the rights of Canadian citizens by saying they cannot do something. We are saying that individuals should be given the information. Information is what it is about. Everyone has the right to ask those questions. We should not have legislation in place, either through this piece of legislation or any other, that says it might jeopardize corporate profitability.

Is corporate profitability more important than knowing that a four year old is sitting at a loom making a rug we are going to walk on so that we can get it for some $20 less? How many of us, if we knew that a four or five or six year old was working on a loom day after day to put a rug under our feet, would buy the darn thing? We would not.

However let us go a step further, have some principles and say that people have a right to know where something is made. They have a right to know if a company is using child labour or if it is paying wages below the standards that it is supposed to. We have a right to know these things.

The legislation should be about the rights of shareholders to control what their corporation is doing. If they are investing they have a right to know where the corporation is investing and if it is breaking laws. That is what we are asking. We are not saying that shareholders cannot do it. We are saying they have a right to know and the right to get information in order to make decisions.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is the first major overhaul of the Canada Business Corporations Act since 1975. It also overhauls the Canada Cooperatives Act and seeks to harmonize the Canada Cooperatives Act with the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Shortly after it was elected in 1993 the Liberal government began a lengthy consultation process on overhauling the Canada Business Corporations Act, a process which has led to the introduction of the bill. The government consulted over 1,700 corporations, corporate associations and corporate law firms but only 41 citizens groups. It appears to have largely ignored the contributions of citizens groups.

Although the consultation process was drawn out over a long period it was not a fair process and the government clearly did not consult as broadly as it should have.

To add insult to injury, after waiting 25 years to overhaul the Canada Business Corporations Act the Liberal government is all of a sudden in a big rush to push the bill through the House as quickly as possible. Why is there such a rush to pass it after 25 years?

After 25 years of overhauling the act we have the Broadbent commission, chaired by Ed Broadbent, whose panel includes representatives from business and labour. The panel is going across the country holding consultations on the issue of corporate responsibility. Those two words, corporate responsibility, probably shock the heck out of the governing party.

The Liberal government is clearly rushing to get the bill passed before the Broadbent commission finishes its work next month. After waiting 25 years the government will rush the bill through within the next 30 days. It wants to avoid addressing the issues the Broadbent commission is dealing with.

The Minister of Industry has assured Mr. Broadbent he will take the commission's findings into account. If that is so, why is the government in such a rush to pass the bill after 25 years?

The minister is taking a similar approach to another bill, Bill S-17, which overhauls the Patent Act. He says there is no time to deal with the problems of the Patent Act which have caused the price of medicine to rise by 87% in the last 10 years. One in ten Canadians cannot afford the prescription medicines they need. There has been an 87% increase in prescription drug costs. This is a serious problem. However the Liberal government does not want to deal with it so it says there is no time.

The real issue is that the Liberal government is putting big corporations ahead of the sick and elderly in Canada who are struggling to pay for their medicine.

It is the same issue here. The government does not want to deal with the findings of the Broadbent commission. The Broadbent commission, unlike the government, is talking to ordinary citizens who are concerned about democracy and corporate responsibility. The Liberal government consulted only with corporations and after 25 years it is suddenly in a rush to pass the bill.

The bill has a lot of technical amendments to bring the act up to date with our current legal system and allow corporations to make better use of electronic communications. That is not a problem.

The three parts of the bill of most concern deal with director liability, shareholder rights and Canadian residency requirements. The words shareholder rights and director liability are probably not well enforced on the other side.

The bill makes it easier for corporate directors to defend themselves from lawsuits if they break their fiduciary responsibilities. Canadian governments have a long history of breaking fiduciary responsibility. They have been doing it to first nations people for decades.

At present corporate directors can use the defence of good faith reliance. They can defend themselves from lawsuits by showing they have acted in good faith and relied on reasonable information from experts like accountants, economists and engineers. Bill S-17 would replace the defence of good faith reliance with a new defence called due diligence.

The Liberal government is trying to make corporate directors even less accountable by removing the obligation to show that they base their actions on facts and expert opinions. Bill S-17 would switch to the more vague language of due diligence which could mean anything and be interpreted in almost any way by the courts.

Why is the government making the language clearer in the rest of the bill but less clear in the section dealing with director liability?

If anyone thinks corporate directors need to be less accountable, as the bill would ensure, they need only look at the Westray tragedy. The bill deals with civil and not criminal liability. However the two are related because the managers of the Westray mine avoided both criminal and civil liability for the deaths of 26 coal miners. Today one of the Westray managers manages a Canadian owned mine in Central America.

I want every member of the House to recognize that it was Justice Richard's inquiry, a long, drawn out inquiry into the Westray tragedy, and its recommendations that prompted the government to put in place criminal liability for corporate directors and executives who knowingly put lives at risk. It was Justice Richard who asked the government to respond.

What has the government done? Nothing. To this day, nine years after the tragedy, nine years yesterday, the government has done nothing. It has already been a number of years since Justice Richard's recommendations were made.

Prior to the election the government made a big show of how it would come forth with legislation to deal with the issue. What are we now hearing? The government will consult industry. After Justice Richard's lengthy inquiry that is its biggest concern. It would rather not deal with the issue at all.

We need to put the bill before committee and have public hearings on it. Let us listen to what industry has to say because a lot of corporations live by the rules and have ethics. They are not the ones for which we bring in laws. It is for the ones which do not have ethics and do not care about workers that we have laws. Not all citizens will commit criminal acts but we want to be able to charge those who do and hold them accountable. The corporate manslaughter issue is about holding corporations responsible.

We have been waiting for the bill for how many years? How many years has the issue been dragging on? Since 1993 the government has had lengthy discussions. We are rushing the bill through now, but where is the legislation on corporate manslaughter? Why is it not being rushed through the House? Why do we not have it on our plates to deal with? It is because the government is not concerned about it.

Hon. members might gather that I am very passionate about the Westray tragedy. I come from a mining community and have seen numerous deaths over the years. Some were accidental and unavoidable, but for a number of others there should have been accountability. When workers go into those places they do not have the same rights as each of us. If we get killed in the House, if someone gets us at the door coming in, they will be liable for murder. It is not the same for ordinary workers going into their workplaces. We are protected. Other workers are not, and that is because the government has failed to bring in legislation.

To give credit where it is due, the bill makes progressive changes on the issue of shareholder rights. My colleague from the Bloc mentioned a number of them. Although the bill does not go far enough in giving shareholders real influence over corporations, it is an improvement.

Bill S-11 would allow shareholders to submit resolutions at annual meetings on any issue pertaining to the business of the corporation. At present, shareholder resolutions pertaining to social or other issues not related to the profitability of the company are not allowed.

However in my view social issues are related to profitability. I do not buy from companies which have substandard labour legislation or take part in human rights violations. For years I made a point of boycotting grapes because of the treatment of farm workers in California and throughout the world. I make a point of making a statement. If a product's country of origin is not marked I take it to the grocery store till and ask. If they cannot tell me I do not buy the product. If it comes from a country with a poor human rights record I do not buy it.

I am not the only one who does that. A lot of responsible, principled people do that because they genuinely care about the people in their country and those throughout the world. I am proud and happy to say that I believe the majority of people would do that if they knew those violations were taking place.

I do not buy rugs that come from certain countries unless they have a tag that says they are not made by child labour. I do not buy certain running shoes. I and a lot of other people do not wear the hats or the logo of certain companies. Many people want to know where products come from and they will make a point of asking.

I prefer to buy Canadian made items because, at least for the most part we are not as bad as other countries. Bad practices do take place in the workplace in Canada but for the most part we are doing a good job. Canada should not lower its labour standards nor diminish workers' rights or its treatment of children. We need to promote Canada's good practices throughout the world.

I would like to return to the issue of profitability of a company. If shareholders find out that the company they partly own is polluting the environment, today they cannot propose a resolution calling on the corporation to put a stop to it. Bill S-11 would make this shareholder resolution possible, and that is a good move.

Another improvement to shareholders' rights that our party supports is the ease with which shareholders would be able to communicate with each other. Under the current Canada Business Corporations Act, it is illegal today for shareholders to solicit proxy votes from other shareholders unless they go to the great expense of sending out a circular to all shareholders. Bill S-11 would allow shareholders to communicate in other less expensive ways, including websites.

We agree with the changes because they would make it easier for groups of small shareholders to band together at shareholders' meetings. It is sad to say that shareholders have to fight to have a say in a corporation that they invest in.

It is important to note that the Liberal government is hardly breaking new ground with these improvements to shareholders' rights. Canada is just playing catch up with the United States which has some of the most progressive laws in the world regarding shareholders' rights. It shows how Canada, under the Liberal government, has fallen behind on some progressive issues.

There are two specific areas where the bill does not go far enough in expanding and improving shareholders' rights.

First, shareholders should have the right to obtain information about a corporation's compliance with the law. It is hard to believe but today corporations do not have to disclose their non-compliance with the law. It can be very hard for shareholders or other people to find out if a corporation is violating labour laws or laws to protect the environment. It is even harder to find out if these violations occur in other countries. Corporations should have to be completely open and transparent with their shareholders about these issues.

Many people want to be ethical investors. They want to know that when they buy shares in a company they are not contributing to the destruction of the environment or violating human rights. Shareholders should have the right to know these things. We emphasize that Canadians do not want to see their Canada pension plan dollars invested in unethical funds, such as in tobacco companies or in mining companies, that are literally wiping out villages in other countries. I know the issue of Talisman oil has come up in these discussions already today.

Shareholders' rights could also be improved by creating a shareholders' rights watchdog group. Many states in the U.S. have created these sorts of groups and they are working out very well. Corporations get shareholders to sign up to the shareholders' rights group. This costs the government and the corporations nothing. All the corporation is doing is inserting a form in a mailing that it has to send out anyway. A shareholders' rights watchdog group is funded and run by its members. There should be no objection to putting it in.

I would like to speak about the issue of Canadian residency. Bill S-11 reduces the requirement for directors of chartered corporations to be residents of Canada. At the present time a majority of the board of directors of a corporation chartered under the Canada Business Corporations Act must be Canadian residents. The current CBCA also requires that a majority of the members of any committees of the board be Canadian residents. Bill S-11 reduces the Canadian residency requirement to 25% of the board of directors and completely eliminates the Canadian residency requirement for committees of the board. There are good arguments for and against the Canadian residency requirement.

On the one hand the argument in favour of the Canadian residency requirement is that in theory if the directors of Canadian corporations live in Canada, they would be closer to the consequences of the corporations' actions and the corporations would therefore be more socially responsible.

On the other hand the existence of these rules has not done much to turn Canadian corporations into good corporate citizens. Many corporate directors live in places such as Toronto and Calgary while their corporations do business in other parts of the country or even abroad. This has not stopped Canadian corporations based in the financial capitals of countries from closing mines and mills in the hinterlands, breaking labour laws, polluting or even violating human rights.

The Canadian residency requirement is a disincentive for corporations to charter in Canada. Canada is the only G-7 country that imposes residency requirements. There are four provinces that do not impose residency requirements: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. Corporations that want to get around the residency requirement can already do so by chartering at the provincial level.

Since it has not done much good to make corporations into good citizens, reducing the Canadian residency requirement may help make Canadian corporations more internationally competitive at little cost. However the issue does seem to warrant more consideration and discussion. It would be nice to hear, for example, what the Broadbent commission has to say on the issue but unfortunately the Liberal government is rushing headlong into the bill before the commission finishes its work.

In conclusion, there has been much discussion over the last few years about corporate responsibility, ethical corporations and good corporate citizens. For the most part corporations are good business operators and good managers that abide by the rules. However it is the same as with anything. We need legislation to take to task those corporations that do not do so, those corporations that finagle, manipulate, and are not upfront and honest with their shareholders. Those are the ones we are dealing with. We need to give shareholders the right to check things out in the same way that corporations have the right to check things out. Shareholders need to have the same rights.

It is crucially important that the government move forward on the whole issue of corporate criminal liability. Under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever should one more worker in Canada die with a corporate executive or director getting away with it if he or she knowingly put that life in jeopardy.

I will once again mention that as of yesterday over the past nine years there were 26 deaths and no one has been held criminally responsible. What have we done to address that? Nothing. It will not go away this time. We will not let it be put to rest.

Week after week we will continue to remind the government that it made a commitment to the people of Canada prior to the election last year that it would deal with the issue of corporate responsibility and criminal liability. We will make sure that it keeps its promise and, if it does not, we will make sure that Canadians hear over and over again that it has failed to do what it promised.