Maud Debien

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is one year after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is five years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council which day shall not be earlier than March 31, 2005.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within 6 months after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. (1) On the expiration of 18 months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within five years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-20, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 27 and 28 on page 4.

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers to decide their own future has recently been tabled by the much unloved Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On February 19, 2000, La Presse newspaper carried Mr. Larose's testimony before the legislative committee, saying:

The bill is a straitjacket, an exercise in obstruction, a lack of democracy; as a matter of fact, this bill is a lie. It is a new trick the federal government came up with to avoid compliance with the supreme court opinion.

Bill C-20 being an attempt by the federal government to take control, it subjugates the Quebec people, who form a perfectly autonomous entity in these matters.

[Committees Of The House, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg for his question.

He said that one of the values considered important by the people of Quebec is respect for human rights, which is a major consideration in most of its decisions.

Indeed, since the Bloc Quebecois has been in the House of Commons, the issue of human rights has been a constant concern, not only of the member for Laval East, because she is the human rights critic, but of all the Bloc Quebecois members.

Since the hon. member has asked me what I would have done, had I drafted this report, to put some teeth in it on the subject of the respect of human rights, I would refer quite simply to the Gowlings report.

Its recommendation is very simple, it provides “As a matter of practice, EDC should consult with DFAIT in advance to ensure that EDC's planned country activities abroad do not conflict with Canada's foreign policy on human rights. DFAIT should establish a process to formulate human rights guidelines and disseminate information on a timely basis, which all businesses dealing with the EDC should follow”.

The recommendations of the Gowlings report are clear and precise, as you can see. There is no 254 word recommendation as is found in the committee's report, on the environment, for example.

The Gowlings report also provides “EDC should implement a policy whereby, when applying for EDC financial or insurance services, Canadian exporters are asked to indicate on a voluntary basis whether they have adopted their own codes of conduct that ensure respect for human rights, ethical business conduct and fair labour standards in their international activities”.

The Gowlings report is clear and precise. It is much clearer than the “clarity act”, and it seems that the government and the EDC should stick just to that.

[Committees Of The House, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Mercier for her question.

In my speech, I did point out that EDC's budget for all activities was $34.7 billion—not $34 billion. The budget for its activities was $34.7 billion. These are commitments of public funds. Even if the EDC provides benefits, the fact remains that these are very substantial commitments of public funds.

As the member for Mercier said, it is unthinkable that the committee rushed through consideration of this report in such a cavalier fashion. In addition, as the member indicated, it is also unacceptable that there is no information or transparency mechanism, given the size of EDC's budget.

One of our recommendations was that EDC be subject to the Access to Information Act. Obviously, the Liberal majority did not go for this.

The member for Mercier is absolutely right about how this report was adopted. I personally have been on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for over six years now, ever since I was elected to the House of Commons. On a few occasions, we had to speed up consideration for certain reports. The member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, who chairs the committee, and who is here and listening today, knows it only too well.

Each time, Bloc Quebecois members agreed to work closely with other members of the committee and in good faith, so as to improve the report. Whenever we had dissenting opinions, we expressed them in good faith and in the spirit of improving the report and Canada's policy. This time, unfortunately, is the first time I have seen such incomprehensible haste at report stage.

[Committees Of The House, February 23rd, 2000]

My colleague asked “What about clarity?” If the Liberal majority were to ask the question in a referendum, there would be clarity problems.

In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois would have preferred that the Export Development Corporation draw more on the very simple and probably more effective operational framework of the World Bank or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, since they require, for each sensitive project in a sensitive area, an impact study, public hearings and most importantly process transparency.

The Bloc Quebecois would not support the EDC's using public funds for projects that would damage the environment or violate human rights and to do so with impunity and in absolute secrecy.

I want to make myself clear, we consider the role played by the Export Development Corporation both positive and vital, but we feel it must conduct itself as a crown corporation of a country that cannot blindly encourage and support exports and investments abroad without considering the effects of its action.

In closing, I would point out that the export sector is of vital importance to the economy of Quebec, which is one of the world's most open economies.

This week, the Quebec minister of state for the economy and finance, Bernard Landry, wisely pointed out that over the past decade Quebec's international exports increased by 130% to $78 billion annually. We must not forget either that Quebec exports 55% of its gross domestic product and that the increase in these exports has meant over 142,000 new jobs.

Quebec supports free trade. Its people understood long before the Liberal government the importance of establishing a trade economy. We too are democrats and we want to assure you that trade and business are conducted according to the ethical values and ideals of the vast majority of Canadians and Quebecers.

[Committees Of The House, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, tabled on Thursday, December 16, 1999, be concurred in.

I rise today to speak to the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, tabled on Thursday, December 16, 1999. This report is entitled “Exporting in the Canadian Interest: Reviewing the Export Development Act”.

First, I will deal with the form and then I will talk about the content.

Members may not know this, but the way the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade approved this report was rather odd, even though the report is of a paramount importance. It is therefore totally unacceptable for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or rather the Liberal majority on the committee, to have approved this report in such a hurry.

Believe it or not, the whole approval process took fifteen minutes. The Liberal majority approved this report of close to one hundred pages—and I stress this—in less than fifteen minutes. Moreover, in view of the fact that some Liberal members on the committee had hardly ever taken part in this review, it was obvious that nothing was going to stop the government from having the report approved on the sly, just before the Christmas recess, unless Liberal backbenchers are able to read faster than the best speed readers.

More importantly, the Export Development Corporation does for $34.7 billion worth of business. In 1998, its profits amounted to $135 million. It is unconscionable to take only fifteen minutes to approve a report dealing with such huge amounts of public money.

Just by pure chance, that particular day when we were determined to maintain the pace of the committee meetings, was the very day that this House debated Bill C-20, a bill which is attempting to stifle the democratic rights of Quebecers to decide on their own future.

The cavalier and disdainful attitude of the Liberal majority in adopting this report at the committee on foreign affairs and international trade will remain in my memory as one of the blackest and most tragic episodes in my parliamentary experience. Heaven only knows that, in my six years on that committee, we have never had to rush the adoption of a report through in such an unacceptable way.

That said, nevertheless the Bloc Quebecois considers that the spirit of the Export Development Act generally responds fairly well to the objectives behind it when it was passed. There is, however, still some room for improvement in the way the Export Development Corporation operates.

We identified three flaws in the committee report, and I would like to address them now.

First of all, as many of those who spoke before the foreign affairs and international trade committee pointed out so clearly, there seems to be a flagrant lack of transparency in the way the corporation operates, and there are serious shortcomings as far as access to information is concerned.

For example, it was impossible for a Bloc Quebecois member on this committee to obtain a breakdown of the corporation's financial activities in Quebec. It is therefore not surprising that it is difficult for the House to know if EDC is respecting the spirit and the letter of the law. That is why we also wanted the Export Development Corporation to be subject to the Access to Information Act.

Bloc Quebecois members are not the only ones worried about this lack of transparency. On October 20, 1998, then Minister for International Trade, Sergio Marchi, engaged Gowling, Strathy and Henderson to review the Export Development Act.

In June 1999, project leader Guy David tabled his report, which contained 39 recommendations, one of which had to do with the issue of accountability and transparency. What is now known as the Gowlings report recommends, and I quote:

EDC should be required to post, on a regular basis, specific information regarding transactions it has supported. Such information might include, for example, the name of the borrower, country, name of exporter, amount and type of financial support, term and a brief description of the goods, services or project involved. Transactions should be posted within 60 days of signing.

Our second reservation is much the same and has to do with the Export Development Corporation's respect for human rights.

Although the Export Development Corporation offers financing services, its particular focus is credit insurance. The risks assumed by the corporation may include factors of a political nature. However, in its evaluation of political risks in each country, the Export Development Corporation does not take into account the human rights situation in the countries where the businesses it is helping are operating.

In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, before granting any money, before providing financial support to any business, the EDC should at least make sure the business adheres to the code of conduct set out by the OECD with regard to human rights.

We find it unacceptable that the Export Development Act could be used to circumvent the values treasured by all Quebecers and Canadians. It is disturbing to think that the Export Development Corporation might help businesses operating in developing countries where they contribute to propagate values conflicting with ours.

In fact, a disturbing situation has just confirmed our apprehensions. No later than last week, KPMG published the results of a poll conducted with 1,000 chief executive officers of Canadian corporations. The results are more than worrisome.

Fifty-eight per cent of the corporations and government organizations that responded to the poll have no senior manager responsible for ethics. Only 38% of respondents said they provided ethics training to their managers and, one time in three, less than one hour a year is devoted to such training.

In spite of all the public discussions that have taken place in recent years on child labour in developing and emerging countries, 16% of exporting businesses have yet to adopt a policy on this issue.

Perhaps even more telling and sad is the fact that the response rate to the survey was extremely low in the private sector, at under 8%. Businesses do not care much about ethics, to say the least. But Canadian businesses are not the only ones to blame. The example is set a the top.

As members know, civil war has been raging in Sudan for several years. A number of non-governmental organizations have condemned the fact that slavery is practised openly. Serious violations of fundamental rights are a common occurrence. Over one million civilians have been killed and 4.5 million people have been displaced within the country.

Talisman Energy, an oil company based in Calgary, does business in Sudan. A few months ago, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs promised to impose sanctions on Talisman if it was demonstrated that the company's presence in Sudan was contributing to the continuation of the civil war in that country.

Also, the American government urged the Canadian government to prohibit Canadian businesses from investing in that African country, which serves as a haven for terrorist organizations.

Yet last week the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that he no longer had any plans to exercise any sanctions against Talisman, despite the fact that his special envoy, John Harker, has demonstrated that oil is a key factor in the terrible civil war that is being waged in Sudan.

Moreover, international observers do not see any hope for a ceasefire as long as oil exploration continues. This is compounded by the fact that the royalties being paid to the Sudanese government are being used in the war effort.

As Bernard Descôteaux rightly asked in an editorial in Le Devoir last week, “Is there no limit to our complicity in a morally reprehensible situation? Clearly, today the Canadian government is accepting this complicity”.

The Export Development Corporation is in strange position. When the government directing it is interested only in the smell of money and of trade, how could we expect the EDC to be inspired by noble ethical and moral values?

Finally, the third problematical element in this second report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade addresses the EDC's environmental responsibilities.

The Gowlings report made one recommendation on this which we felt to be very reasonable: “Canada should encourage the early development of an international consensus on environmental guidelines and procedures for export credit agencies. In the meantime, EDC should adopt a substantively and methodologically clear and transparent environmental framework”.

I will dispense with the reading of another recommendation of 424 words, in which anyone could get irretrievably lost in a maze of pompous, complicated and inapplicable language.