Roy Cullen

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. Certainly many of the initiatives he described are comforting and I think are very valuable.

The point I was trying to make is that I think there is a role for members in this Chamber, whether that be in committee of the whole, in the House of Commons during debate, or in committee, to study this in more detail, because I think it does affect every single Canadian. There are Canadians who have investments, either through pension plans, mutual funds or direct investments, and they want to have the confidence necessary to move forward. I think some of the initiatives that are developing are very positive.

Part of the debate, of course, is how interventionist the government should or should not be. If the right mechanisms are in place through the private sector or the various institutions within Canada and we get the desired results, then I am sure the legislators do not have to deal with it so comprehensively, but I think we need to work for results and I hope the minister will engage parliamentarians on this sooner rather than later.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 26 I asked the Minister of Finance whether or not he was planning any initiatives in the area of corporate governance. I asked this because I believe that Canada is certainly not immune from scandals like Enron and WorldCom which have occurred in the United States. Some have said the only difference is that our scandals are smaller. Of course here in Canada we have already seen the very negative effects of the collapse of companies like Bre-X, Livent and others.

I was reassured when the minister noted that he was very pleased with the cooperation that had been demonstrated to date by federal and provincial regulators and the private sector to implement an appropriate Canadian response to the issues highlighted by recent U.S. scandals. I would hope that the minister would sometime soon begin to consult with members of the House because corporate governance is a very important public policy debate that deserves the attention of elected officials as well as regulators and bureaucrats.

What we have is a crisis of confidence in the markets and the financial statements and information that underlie these markets. The directors and managers of public companies in Canada and the United States and indeed around the world are under severe pressure to show a steady improvement in the reported earnings of their companies. Failure to do so results in declines in stock values and perhaps the value of executive stock options owned by these same executives. The quantity of earnings have always been important. Now investors have concerns about the quality of reported earnings. This undermines confidence in the markets and is not conducive to attracting investment and economic growth.

In the United States, in a rush to address market confidence, the response has been swift and multifaceted. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was rushed in south of the border to address corporate governance issues. It seems to be encountering difficulties as regulators attempt to implement these laws. In fact, the exact opposite of the desired result may be occurring. Companies are being scared away and initial public offerings are being shelved as a result of the legislation. When people's trust in the system is undermined, they stop investing. It is as simple as that.

We need a made in Canada solution that is geared to our own needs and our own institutions. A very positive first step is the Canadian public accountability board which was established by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Securities Administrators and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This board is designed to provide a new independent public oversight for auditors of public companies.

The board will provide: one, more rigorous inspection of auditors of public companies; two, tougher auditor independence rules; and three, new quality control requirements for firms auditing public companies. This board is a very important and valuable contribution to an improvement in corporate governance in Canada, but other questions remain.

For example, should corporate managers face heightened responsibility for the accuracy of company financial statements? Should sanctions be civil, criminal, or both? Should there be a greater number of independent members on the boards of directors of public companies? Could the role of the audit committee of boards of directors be improved and enhanced? Should the chairman and CEO role for public companies be separated?

There are other broader issues, such as what is the scope of federal power in corporate governance? To what extent should corporate governance practices be legislated, regulated or made voluntary? To what extent should we differentiate the corporate governance requirements of small and large corporations? To what extent should securities regulators in Canada be offering greater protection for less sophisticated investors?

These are all very important questions. I hope that we can deal with them in the House or in committee at the earliest opportunity.

[User Fees Act, November 29th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the House about my private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees.

The intent of this legislation is to bring greater transparency and accountability and parliamentary oversight to federal government departments and agencies when they attempt to recover costs through user fees.

User fees take many different forms. They are meant to defray some or all of the costs of a service provided by government, presumably in the public interest, but which also provides a specific service to a client, for example, licence fees, registrations, et cetera.

I would like to say at the outset that I support the government objective of recovering the costs it incurs by charging fees for users of property and specialized services. The bill that I introduced deals with the following issues:

The bill addresses the need for more parliamentary oversight when user fees are introduced or changed; the need for greater stakeholder participation in the fee setting process; and improved linkages between user fees and federal department and agency performance specifications and standards. There is a requirement for more comprehensive stakeholder impact and competitive analysis when new user fees or fee increases are contemplated. The goal is increased transparency with respect to why fees are applicable, what fees are charged, what costs are identified as recoverable and whether performance standards are being met.

There also needs to be a dispute settlement mechanism to resolve complaints or grievances from user fee payers, and an annual report that lists all of the user fees that are in effect. This report would be tabled in the House and referred to the relevant committee of the House, which might be the finance committee.

Our government has embarked on a very ambitious innovation agenda. We need to ensure that our regulatory environment supports and encourages this very important objective. The government recognized this connection when it launched the smart regulation initiative in the recent throne speech. The government announced that it will “move forward with a smart regulation strategy to accelerate reforms in key areas, to promote health and sustainability, to contribute to innovation and economic growth and to reduce the administrative burden on business”.

I would suggest to colleagues in the House that the government's cost recovery user fee policy runs counter to the innovation agenda and should be a major part of the smart regulation initiative. Bill C-212 does just that, in my view.

It is time for parliamentarians to take greater ownership of user fees. What began as a legitimate attempt to more fully recover costs for proprietary services and goods has developed into something that is beyond that which was contemplated.

User fees currently bring in $4 billion annually in revenues for the federal government. There is a systemic bias for federal government departments and agencies to increase user fees. Departments and agencies of the federal government have in many cases expanded the concept and introduced user fees, and increased user fees, beyond what is reasonable and more often than not without any reference to service or performance.

It is not that federal civil servants are bad managers. We have some of the best in the world. But we do know that individuals will respond to incentives that are built into the reward and recognition system. It is only natural. If they are rewarded for increasing user fees, if this assists them in their budget building process, they will respond accordingly.

Let us keep in mind that these are monopolies increasing their prices. If a company wishes to have a drug approved, for example, it cannot shop around if the price charged by Health Canada is excessive.

The fact that certain of these user fee revenues accrue to what are referred to as net votes may be a motivating factor as well. A net vote is one where user fee revenues are credited directly to the budget of the government entity. They do not accrue to the consolidated revenue account of the government as general revenues.

The result of user fee revenue that is credited to net votes is that the budgetary requirements of the department or agency are reduced because the fees are deducted from expenditure budget requests. Even where user fee revenues find their way to consolidated revenue and not to a net vote, this additional revenue implemented by departments and agencies is seen as a positive measure by Treasury Board, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, the body that recommends annual budgetary appropriations for these organizations for inclusion in the annual budget and budgetary estimates.

This practice strongly encourages departments and organizations to charge user fees and increase them above the amount originally planned. There is now incentive to systematically multiply these fees. The time has come to make this practice more transparent.

Companies in my riding of Etobicoke North, companies like BASF Canada and Bayer Canada which are exposed to such fees for drug approvals or approvals of chemical products, do not argue about the appropriateness of user fees for proprietary services. They understand that this is required. What they believe is seriously eroding their competitiveness however are increasing fees with no corresponding increase in service or performance. Since fees have been on the rise in most cases, there has been no corresponding improved service or response times.

In Canada for example, it takes an average of 750 days for a drug to be approved. In the United States the corresponding time is 500 to 550 days. In Europe the timeframe is less. User fee charges however are as high or higher in Canada when compared with these jurisdictions.

With drugs and chemical and agricultural products, competitive advantage often depends on being the first mover to the marketplace. It is easy to understand why our Canadian companies are seeing their competitive position eroded.

In the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, user fees are tied in some way to the service provided and the quality of that service. The Government of Canada has not yet implemented this type of measure. In Australia, drug reviews must be carried out within the time period set out in legislation, and if not, the authorities lose up to 25% of their user fees.

In the U.S.A. written performance goals tied to the fee collecting authority were negotiated with the industry. The Medicines Control Agency in the United Kingdom sets targets for clearance times.

Bill C-212 would potentially affect Canadians from coast to coast to coast because it would apply to federal government departments, agencies, boards, crown corporations, commissions or any other body that has the power to fix a user fee or a cost recovery charge under the authority of an act of Parliament. Thus, individuals paying fees to visit a federal park, passengers paying the air traveller security charge, individuals paying a fee to the passport office for a passport, or provincial or territorial authorities paying fees to the Canadian Coast Guard for ice breaking services, would be affected by the bill.

I have introduced the bill because of a certain level of frustration with the lack of progress on this issue. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance some two years recommended significant changes to the cost recovery user fee policy, but progress to date has been minimal. In fact there are concerns by stakeholder groups that the policy may be moving in the opposite direction.

Bill C-212 would require that before a federal regulating authority introduces increases or expands the application of, or increases the duration of, a user fee, it must consult meaningfully with affected stakeholder and client groups.

It must take reasonable measures to notify clients and other regulating authorities with a similar clientele of the proposed user fee changes. That is because some of these user fees become incremental in nature. Different departments and agencies are adding these fees and, in totality, they become quite burdensome.

The regulating authority would be required to give all clients or service users a reasonable opportunity to provide ideas or proposals for ways to improve the services to which the user fee relates.

The regulating authority would be required to conduct an impact assessment to identify relevant factors and take into account its findings in a decision to fix or change the user fee.

The regulating authority would need to explain to clients clearly how the user fee is determined and identify the cost and revenue elements of the user fee.

Finally, the regulating authority would be required to establish an independent dispute resolution process to address a complaint or grievance submitted by a client regarding the user fee or charge.

To some, these provisions may appear completely reasonable; to others, they may appear to be quite onerous.

I will acknowledge that these measures would not simplify life for these regulating authorities. I make no apology for that. I believe that all these steps are necessary because these fees could have an enormous impact on companies and individuals in Canada. These groups may have some constructive ideas about how the service could be improved, especially if they are paying more for the service.

It is important to understand what costs are proposed to be recovered with the proposed user fee or fee increase. How expansive or limited is this definition? To what extent are direct and indirect costs, like departmental or agency overheads, included in the cost recovery formula? How costs are defined can make a major difference in the level of the user fee. We need more transparency and accountability in this area as well and Bill C-212 would provide that transparency and accountability.

Parliamentarians need to understand how departments and agencies define what is a public good and what is a private good. These definitions are usually not easy, to be sure. These definitions are typically not black and white, and some are easier than others to define. However, these are important considerations because user fees could only be charged for proprietary goods and services, and parliamentarians need to be involved in these debates. Bill C-212 would allow for that to happen.

Every user fee proposal under Bill C-212 must be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to a committee of the House by the relevant minister. That proposal would, first, explain in respect of what service, facility, authorization, permit or licence the user fee is being proposed. Second, it would state the reason for any proposed change in the user fee rate. Third, it would outline what performance standard is being proposed, as well as the actual performance level that has been reached. Fourth, it would provide an estimate of the total amount that the regulating authority would collect in the first three years after the introduction of the user fee, and identify the costs that the user fee would recover.

Should the amount of the user fee being proposed be higher than that existing in another OECD country the minister would be required by Bill C-212 to give reasons for the difference.

These questions are very important for the competitiveness of Canadian business. A case in point is the new substance notification program. Chemical companies in Canada, when they introduce a new product into the domestic market must appropriately obtain approval from the federal government prior to launching the product. The federal government reviews the application and makes a determination as to whether or not the product is safe and effective. To cover the cost of this approval process companies must pay a user fee. Companies have no difficulty with this.

They do question, however, why our government will not recognize assessments and approvals from our major trading partners, particularly the U.S.A. Questions such as this would attract more scrutiny from the House of Commons and the relevant committee.

Bill C-212 spells out what the requirements are when adjustments in the application of user fees are proposed. This provision is necessary because broadening the application of a fee can have as large an impact as a fee price increase.

If a regulating authority wishes to amend the definition of persons subject to the application of a particular user fee for the purposes of maintaining fairness or covering additional cost, the regulating authority may implement the amendments, but the minister must, within 40 days of their implementation, seek the committee's approval for the new measures. Failure to do so would invalidate the adjustments and any change must be consistent with the principles laid out in the act.

Despite this provision a regulating authority may not fix, increase, expand the application of, or increase the duration of, a user fee unless the result gives an additional benefit to clients.

The committee of the House would review every user fee proposal and make recommendations to the House of Commons as to the appropriate fee. Although this step would result in a large volume of work, at least initially, the committee of the House would design the appropriate mechanism to handle the volume of proposals. The formation of a user fee subcommittee or some type of exception reporting system are two such possibilities.

We currently have a number of examples where committees handle a regular volume of like matters and they institutionalize certain mechanisms to deal with that. There would clearly be a learning curve and a bulge of work at the launch of this initiative because many user fees have had limited or no scrutiny by Parliament. This work would become more regularized over time.

Early indications are that Bill C-212 has broad support across a wide spectrum. Support letters are continuing to come into my office and many more are expected. If members would like to see those letter they are more than welcome to come to my office.

The bill is supported so far by the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery. The coalition is made up of representatives of leading Canadian business organizations representing large, medium and small businesses in a diverse range of sectors of the Canadian economy, from agriculture and cosmetics to marine transportation.

The combined membership employs over 2.2 million Canadians and is directly responsible for over $330 billion in economic activity annually. The business coalition members include: Animal Nutrition Association of Canada; Canadian Animal Health Institute; Canadian Association of Chemical Distributors; Canadian Chemical Producers' Association; Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association; Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association; Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters Inc.; Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters; Forest Products Association of Canada, which by the way represents 3% of Canada's GDP; Medical Devices Canada; Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada; and Rx & D, Canada's Research Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is a member of the Business Coalition on Cost Recovery, represents over 103,000 small and medium sized businesses and it has told me that supporting Bill C-212 is at the top of its public policy agenda and priority list.

Other supporters of the bill include: CropLife Canada, Canadian Medical Device Technology Companies, the Industry Coordinating Group for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which includes, in addition to some of the members I have previously mentioned, the following: Adhesives & Sealants Manufacturing Association of Canada, Canadian Paint & Coatings Association, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Canadian Plastics Industry Association, Canadian Steel Producers Association, Canadian Textiles Institute, Ecological & Toxicological Association of the Dyes & Organic Pigment Manufacturers, Industrial Biology Association, and the Soap & Detergent Association.

Other organizations include: Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, a $14 billion industry which employs over 11,000 Canadians. Many companies also support Bill C-212, like Bayer CropScience; BASF Canada; Provel Animal Health , a division of Eli Lilly Canada Inc.; Engage Argo Corporation; and Crompton Company.

These are serious organizations employing thousands of Canadians across Canada. These organizations support the bill because it is the right thing to do. It would encourage companies to make investments and create jobs.

I ask colleagues to support the bill. It would enhance Canada's competitiveness and advance our country's innovation agenda.

[Human Resources Development, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a number of different issues to be settled as far as skills training is concerned. This is the case in the community of Etobicoke, of course. The Canadian population is greying and many skilled workers are approaching retirement age.

Recognizing that there are many players involved in this challenge, including business, what concrete steps are being taken through partnerships between government and industry to ensure young Canadians have the skills they need?

[Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind the House that November is Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, or CPR Awareness Month.

CPR saves lives by ensuring a sufficient supply of oxygen until emergency medical attendants arrive. CPR is a simple technique that can be learned in under four hours, but despite this, fewer than 3% of Canadians know how to perform it.

This month, the Heart and Stroke Foundation is advising Canadians to learn to recognize the warning signs of heart attacks and strokes and to phone immediately in the case of an emergency.

I invite members to support the initiatives and programs planned during CPR Awareness Month, and I urge all Canadians to take the time to learn it.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about the air quality in Toronto where I live and where my constituency is. If the Kyoto accord addressed that I think it would be a relevant question.

The Kyoto accord deals with greenhouse gases. I understand his point about low level greenhouse gases. I am not a scientist but in terms of the main issue of air quality and smog in Toronto, the Kyoto plan will only peripherally affect air quality in Toronto and in other major cities.

I have had this discussion with many constituents. I think many Canadians are confused on this point. When we get into gases other than CO

2

, we are entering into a favourite topic of mine and that is methane. We have all these landfills. Toronto now is shipping landfill to Michigan. Originally it was going to ship it up to northern Ontario, it was going to sit in a big pile and the methane gas, which is 20 times worse than CO

2

, was going to evaporate into the atmosphere. Right now we have certain collection and flaring systems around Canada. If we just implemented that technology across Canada, we could get to 20% to 25% of our Kyoto targets.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I put that very question to the minister yesterday. I was concerned that there had been a lot of discussion about us signing the accord and if we did not meet our commitments, would be some wiggle room. I wanted him to clarify that for me.

As I understand it, if there is some shortfall in the megatonne reduction, those megatonnes would be somehow factored into the next phase. There would not be a financial penalty but there would be a penalty of megatonnes. I was also told by the minister that there would be a negotiated approach. If the targets were too ambitious in the first phase, that would tell us something about the second phase, and those would be negotiated at the time.

I come back to the view that if we sign the accord, we should commit to those results and should not count on failure. I know our government is not counting on failure but I just hope we have the wherewithal.

With all the stakeholders involved, another concern I have is how we effect change when we have this state of play in Canada, where major stakeholders, many provinces and many industrial sectors are not on side? Once the accord is signed, the really tough job will be to implement it. We need to have people on side.

I have cited certain examples of corporations where the CEO has said “here is your target and you tell me how to get there”. That is a good aggressive management style and it is appropriate. However it starts out with a premise that the original target is within the realm of feasibility, possibility or achievement. At this point in time I am not sure that we have the facts or the information to make those conclusions.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the ratification of the Kyoto accord, but I do have some concerns. The updated climate change plan for Canada that our government released last week is certainly an improvement on the earlier version.

Governments around the world need to reduce greenhouse gases. We have all seen the evidence of climate change: temperature change, and an increase in the number of natural disasters, including flooding, ice storms and drought.

There is clearly a cost associated with these phenomena. One might initially think that reducing or eliminating greenhouse gas emissions would benefit Canada's agriculture sector—although this sector has been noticeably silent on this matter.

We need to take action on greenhouse gases. The question before us is whether or not the Kyoto accord is the right mechanism for Canada to achieve this objective. There is absolutely no point, in my opinion, in signing the Kyoto accord if Canada cannot meet the targets and timetable implicit in the accord, that is, the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. This is an ambitious undertaking and perhaps why the current Canadian plan is still short by 60 megatonnes out of a total of 240 megatonnes that Canada must achieve by the agreed date.

Why sign an agreement if the objectives cannot be achieved? To show leadership? To demonstrate environmental sensitivity? This is not enough in my view. We should sign the accord if it makes sense for Canada and if, and only if, we can achieve the commitments we undertake within the accord. Otherwise, a strictly made in Canada solution is required.

Canada seems to be leading with her chin on greenhouse gases. The U.S. government is not proceeding with the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto targets for the Europeans are hardly stretch targets for them. The closure of a number of outdated and environmentally insensitive factories, in what used to be East Germany and a conversion of coal fired plants in Great Britain to gas fired plants, means that moving from the 1990 levels to the 2008-2012 targets would not be as demanding for the Europeans as it would for Canada. In a sense it is easier for them to achieve their commitments under Kyoto.

Then we have countries like China, Russia and others which are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. They would be required to do nothing until 2012. Even then it would be difficult for the international community to force these countries to honour their commitments beginning in 2012.

What are we left with? The Americans with a made in U.S.A. solution, the Europeans with a made in Europe approach and the Chinese, Russians and others with an approach to Kyoto that meets their needs, and Canada marches on convinced that we must ratify the Kyoto accord. I would prefer a made in Canada solution.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance visited Calgary recently as part of our prebudget consultations. I asked business leaders there whether they believed that a negotiated solution to Kyoto was possible in Canada, that is, a negotiating set of greenhouse gas reduction targets somewhere between those outlined in the Kyoto accord and some stretch targets for Canada, beyond those initially payable by the provinces and industry. The response was yes, such a result was possible in their view. We should strive for this.

Should we be concerned that the U.S. government will not ratify Kyoto? We should not be afraid to embark on a path that is different from our U.S. neighbours, certainly not. But we cannot ignore their position on this important matter because 87% of our exports are to the U.S. market.

As an Ontario MP I am concerned that companies in my province and indeed across Canada which are competing with companies in the U.S.A. would have greenhouse gas emission reduction targets that exceed those of their competition across the border. Will their added costs impact their competitiveness and risk plant closures and job losses? We are told that although the U.S. government is not ratifying the Kyoto accord, many U.S. states are taking action on greenhouse gases, states like Oregon, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and California.

While I understand the need to avoid paralysis by analysis, what do I tell companies in my riding of Etobicoke North which are shipping most of their production to Michigan or New York? What are those states doing? Will the companies in Etobicoke North be at a competitive disadvantage and have to cut jobs or shut down? Surely these are important questions.

The free trade agreement and NAFTA resulted in some major industrial dislocation in my riding of Etobicoke North, and in the rush to sign and implement that agreement there were few, if any, mechanisms to assist employers and employees during the transition period.

We are told that ratifying the Kyoto accord would result in Canada becoming more innovative. It would accelerate the development and adoption of new low emissions technologies. This in itself would result in new economic activity, we are told, and productivity enhancements and would offset many of the negative impacts on the so-called old economy.

Well, certainly some of these developments will occur. However, we must recognize four important points.

FIrst, there is a considerable gestation period between the time that technologies are identified and the time that they are commercialized—often up to ten years. In other words, this pushes us to 2012 for some of these ideas to be implemented.

Second, some of the knowledge and equipment would need to be imported, which certainly does nothing to stimulate job creation in Canada.

Third, we were told in Calgary that a number of clients in Canada are currently employing state of the art emissions reducing technologies. The Kyoto targets they would be handed would require these plants to go beyond where they are today with the latest technology. What are they supposed to do other than buy emissions credits at a cost?

Certainly improving energy efficiency and conservation is a laudable goal that we should strive for in Canada. Improvements in these areas would be good for the environment and the economy. Not all emissions reducing enhancements would result in productivity enhancements. There would be a cost associated with their implementation and in many cases with no corresponding economic benefit. Environmental benefits are positive by themselves but we should not delude ourselves about the economic consequences of our actions.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require changes in behaviour by Canadian businesses and consumers. I am not sure that Canadians would support ratification of the Kyoto accord until they understand it.

Fully 28% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are derived from the transportation sector, that is, emissions from cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and others. We would need to deal with this by travelling less in traditional modes and using more public transport, which would be a good thing, and by employing different fuels that may cost more, by driving vehicles that use less fuel, and by taking a variety of actions with these in concert with one another. Would this happen naturally and without any cost? No, it would not and Canadians need to understand this.

Our government will need to provide policies, signals, incentives and disincentives to facilitate these changes. Some of these will be incorporated into the February 2003 budget—and therein lies the rub.

We do not, and cannot, know what these will be until the budget is tabled. Many of these economic instruments will determine whether or not we have a chance to meet the Kyoto targets. We are being asked, however, to approve the ratification of the Kyoto accord in advance of the budget.

Many less onerous solutions to the problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions are being ignored by governments at all levels. An example is municipal solid waste and landfills which emit huge amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more dangerous in terms of greenhouse gases than CO

2

We must deal with greenhouse gases aggressively. However we must be responsible and realistic in our approach. We should not ratify the Kyoto accord unless we can meet these commitments. To do less would be dishonest.

I am hopeful that we can find a way to aggressively attack greenhouse gases in Canada. Let us hope and pray that we will find the wisdom to do so.

[Securities Industry, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the post-Enron and post-WorldCom world, Canada is not immune. A number of respected business leaders in Canada have called for legislation similar to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in the U.S.A., while others are calling for a less interventionist approach.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Should Canadian investors have faith in corporate governance in Canada?

Is the minister planning any initiatives in the area of corporate governance? When will he begin consulting with Canadians generally and Canadian parliamentarians specifically on this important topic?

[Question No. 21, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-17, the public safety act.

Everyone around the world is reassessing their approach to public safety, particularly after the events of September 11. People in countries such as Canada that are potential targets for terrorist operations or terrorist threats have to deal very responsibly and assertively with this very real threat.

It is always a challenge to balance off public safety against the privacy issue of our citizens. Our government has done a very good job in making sure that happens.

Bill C-17 replaces Bill C-55 which was introduced on April 29, 2002 but died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued in September. The new bill repeats many of those provisions but there have been some enhancements also. Many Canadians expressed concern over certain privacy issues and the government listened.

The provisions require air carriers to provide passenger information to designated persons in Transport Canada, the RCMP or CSIS. This proposed scheme would include strict controls on access, use and disclosure of information so that it does not go to anybody who wants that information just for their own benefit or purpose. There is a very strict control on who can access that information and for what purpose.

In addition, the ministers must respond more quickly to the Parliament of Canada if they have to use various emergency measures. The period of time within which ministers would be required to table interim orders before Parliament has been reduced to 15 days, whether Parliament is in session or not. The period during which ministers must obtain cabinet approval has also been reduced to 14 days for all statutes. In Bill C-55 in many cases it was 45 days which created some concerns among some of our citizens.

This new provision will allow ministers to act rapidly to address risks in emergency situations while putting into place proper oversight mechanisms.

The bill is meant to enact a number of provisions that were in Bill C-55, but it also includes some enhancements, particularly addressing some of the privacy concerns that Canadians raised in the interim period.

The bill enhances the ability of the government to provide a secure environment for air travel. This is something most Canadians are looking for and the bill responds to that. It facilitates data sharing between air carriers and federal departments and agencies for the purposes of transportation and national security. It allows for the issuance of interim orders in emergency situations while ensuring that there is proper transparency and accountability.

The bill will deter hoaxes that endanger the public or heighten public anxiety. We have seen the signs regarding airport security which say that a person cannot joke about various weapons or materials they may or may not have in their possession. This puts that into a legislative context and makes it a very serious offence.

The bill also establishes tighter controls over explosives and hazardous substances, activities related to other dangerous substances such as pathogens, and the export and transfer of technology.

When we go to the airport we want to know that the concerns about security are being dealt with and the bill deals with that. It also deals with those who would cause some difficulty on aircraft. We have heard about air rage, individuals who cause a lot of problems on aircraft.

Our family has a good friend who is a member of the cabin crew on one of the major airlines. She told us of the incidents of air rage and the various different forms and shades. Some are much more serious than others.

We heard about an incident the other day, where someone on an El Al plane ran up to the cockpit door with a weapon. El Al has air marshals on just about every plane. They were able to wrestle the chap and he was arrested when the plane landed in Ankara.

The government has called for cockpit doors to be virtually impenetrable. Some of the cockpit crew and the pilots would like either to have weapons or to have marshals on all the flights. I know that we will have a debate on this. I am in agreement with our minister when he talks about some of the dangers of having weapons on board. There are air marshals now on flights going to the United States, but whether we need to increase their number is something we need to debate more in Canada.

The government in budget 2001 brought in measures totalling approximately $7.7 billion over a number of years which would increase and enhance Canada's security. That is the commitment that was made. These measures will counter the activities of terrorists and make our border much safer where we can ensure that terrorists and people with those sort of intentions are screened more readily.

We are not so concerned about the low risk people who go back and forth across our border. That is why the government has instituted with the U.S. government a system of preclearance and pre-authorization so that the low risk people and carriers can cross the border freely. Eighty-seven per cent of our exports go to the United States. We have to ensure that we have a border where people and goods move freely.

We also know there are many travellers and many vehicles where there is virtually no risk of terrorist activity or smuggling of any type. The new provisions allow for the safe movement of people and vehicles that are low risk or no risk but make sure that higher risk people or carriers are dealt with and queried. This is to ensure that they do not have access to the United States or Canada to commit various acts of violence, whether they be terrorism or engaging in money laundering activities, taking money back and forth across the border to finance terrorist activities.

I am glad to see that Fintrac, the agency that was set up by the federal government to address money laundering activities, is operating fully. It tracks transactions that are accepted by deposit taking institutions and other financial intermediaries. It ensures that those amounts are reported and investigated if there is any suspicion they might be related to money laundering activities and money laundering that would be devoted especially to any type of terrorist activities.

The bill also deters the proliferation of biological weapons. We all know what is happening today in Iraq. Most Canadians hope that Saddam Hussein, the leader in Iraq, will cooperate with the weapons inspectors and that if any weapons of mass destruction are located they will be destroyed and we can avert a war that would be very costly, not only in terms of money but in terms of human lives and the well-being of many people.

We should get on with this bill. I ask the members opposite to support Bill C-17. It is a good bill and we should get behind it.