Deepak Obhrai

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank you for giving me a lot of advice when I came into the House as a rookie. You pointed out a lot of things to me, and I highly appreciated your help. I learned a lot from you. I guess when I do come back I will have graduated from being a rookie to second term MP. I take this opportunity to wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the 80 year old International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. I will begin by explaining why we are compelled to debate this issue. Water is an issue that touches the lives of all Canadians. It is part of Canadian heritage. Canadians are very concerned at the thought of losing control of the country's freshwater resources.

It is a legitimate concern. Canada will face an increasing demand for this precious resource in the new millennium. I remind members and all Canadians of the failure of the Liberal government to protect Canada's freshwater resources.

Canadians also deserve to be informed of the past mistakes made by the government on this issue. The export of water was never supposed to be an issue in Canada. Various federal politicians in the early 1990s claimed that Canada had a right to manage its own water and that water would never be challenged under any international agreement. Unfortunately this is not the case. The water issue is back on the table.

On May 28, 1993, a few days before the election, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who happens to be the minister who introduced Bill C-15, expressed his concerns about NAFTA and its implication for Canada's freshwater resource.

The government is on record as saying that NAFTA should be amended to prohibit bulk water exports. Had Liberals kept their promise, Canadians would not have to worry about the issue of bulk water exports and we certainly would not be discussing this matter today.

The 1993 Liberal red book said that NAFTA would be an opportunity to correct any flaws that existed with the free trade agreement with the U.S.A. and Mexico. Liberals promised Canadians we would retain control of our water. They promised to review the side agreements of NAFTA to ensure that they were in Canada's best interest. Regardless of these promises, the government signed the NAFTA deal without a side agreement on water.

Raw logs and unprocessed fish were exempted from NAFTA, but the best arrangement Canada could get on water was the following side deal signed by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on December 2, 1993: “The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party of the agreement”.

Ultimately this side deal is of little legal value. Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and has become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement including NAFTA. Nothing in NAFTA obliges any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin to export water in any form.

Water in its natural state in lakes, reservoirs, water basins and the like is not a good or a product. It therefore is not traded and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement. The side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a product.

With the exception of international boundary waters, the vast majority of water in its natural state is owned and managed by the provinces. It is a provincial responsibility to manage the resources carefully, just as the provinces manage their forests and oil and gas. If one province enters the business of tendering contracts to export bulk water, then according to chapter 11 of NAFTA it must treat Canadian, American and Mexican companies in a similar fashion.

National treatment provisions give all corporations of our NAFTA partners the right to help themselves to our water the moment any Canadian company is given an export permit. In fact, water would not be exempt from NAFTA once we started shipping water. The government would be powerless to stop it. If it did, the government would have to compensate for lost income under the investor state provisions.

The government did not have the foresight to think that some provinces may one day look into the possibility of licensing the export of water, but recent examples show us the opposite. First, the province of Newfoundland granted an export permit to McCurdy Enterprises Limited to export water from Gisborne Lake. Second, in Ontario the Nova Group received a licence to extract water from Lake Superior.

Finally, in British Columbia, the California company Sun Belt wanted to export water from B.C. It is now demanding up to $10.5 billion in damages from the federal and B.C. governments alleging that its rights under NAFTA have been violated. Sun Belt is demanding restoration of the water export licence the B.C. government cancelled in 1991 and compensation for lost business opportunities.

Although the provinces eventually pulled out of these proposals, the agreements renewed fears about water export and the impact of our trade agreements.

Let us now look at the government's strategy that it believes will ensure Canada's control over its freshwater. This government, having failed to protect Canadian sovereignty over water during NAFTA negotiations, is now proposing a backup solution.

Liberals had six years to propose legislation since the ratification of the NAFTA but preferred to wait and be pushed to the wall before they reacted. This does not surprise me, since Liberal strategy can be defined as a wait and see approach.

Bill C-15 proposes to prohibit bulk water removal from boundary waters between Canada and the U.S.A. That covers only 15% of Canada's water resources. The provinces manage the remaining 85%. The government's water strategy includes a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal. However, five provinces have refused to endorse the accord, leaving the country's water vulnerable to exportation.

The federal strategy was designed in the belief that all provinces would agree on a national ban. It is quite obvious after the two day debate in Kananaskis in late November 1999 that the government has failed to achieve this goal.

Bill C-15 legislates authority to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to impose a prohibition on the removal of boundary waters out of the natural water basin. It provides clear sanctions and penalties for violations. This means a licence will be required from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for any activity that would have the effect of altering the natural level or flow of water on the U.S. side of the border. Clearly another level of bureaucracy will be added. The government has shown in the past that it is exceptionally good at adding levels of bureaucracy when it is not needed.

Nowhere in the bill is the word export used. The government feels, and with good reason, the term will imply that water is a commercial good. What the absence of the word export really means is that water was part of the negotiations during the NAFTA talks. That is one thing the government should admit. The fact that the government is taking the route to ban bulk water export shows how little faith it has in the December 1993 side deal it signed after promising Canadians it would protect our sovereignty over water.

As it stands now we can say yes or no, but we have lost the right to say yes to Canadians only. Perhaps the government thinks the bill will somehow magically remove Canada from our international agreements on water. Unfortunately the bill is far from closing the door on the water export issue.

Several Liberal MPs, including the member for Davenport, have stated in the House that the proposed accord will lead to a patchwork of provincial initiatives making Canada vulnerable to trade challenges. He said:

It seems quite clear that a meaningful protection of our water resources requires the federal government to face the reality of international trade agreements.

Does this mean the member thinks NAFTA should be renegotiated to exclude water? The former foreign affairs minister thought that way when he was in the opposition. I quote the member for Winnipeg South Centre:

We should be making a direct proposal to the United States administration that in looking at the new environmental accords as part of NAFTA we include the exclusion of water as part of that accord.

He had the power to implement in government what he had said in opposition. Why did he refuse to do so?

The core issue up for debate today is the protection of our sovereignty and rights over water. Bill C-15 does not resolve that issue. The failure of the government to protect our resources leaves the impression that the government is using the issue of water export as a political tool, one that should give it enormous leverage as a future trade cash cow.

What should be done? In 1993 while the government was busy signing away our sovereignty over water, the Canadian Alliance made a specific statement on the protection of our fresh water. The Canadian Alliance stated that exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canadians.

Canada possesses about 9% of the world's renewable water resources and 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. This includes water captured in glaciers and in the polar ice caps. Protection of our sovereignty over this valuable resource is critical to Canadians and to our national identity.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians should retain control over our water resources and supports exempting water from our international agreements, including NAFTA. An outright ban on water export would run contrary to our NAFTA commitment because water was not exempt from that agreement.

A side agreement would have to be negotiated that would exempt water from NAFTA before a ban on water exports could even be considered. Until an exemption is achieved, we encourage the provinces to place a moratorium on commercial water licensing so that water in bulk form never becomes a good governed by NAFTA rules.

Once an exemption from NAFTA is in place, the decision to export water in bulk should rest with the provinces that own the resource. Natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction and international trade is under federal jurisdiction. As a result of this constitutional division of powers, any water export scheme can only succeed with the support and co-operation of both levels of government.

In the absence of exempting water from NAFTA, the Canadian Alliance will support the proposed bill as it represents the only viable approach that the federal government can take and the only constitutionally valid NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water export. However, I would like to see the government propose real answers to this issue and show some leadership in exempting water from our trade agreements.

It would have been preferable to exempt water from NAFTA but failing that, Bill C-15 will have to do as second best. The Canadian Alliance is not asking the government to back out of NAFTA as has been proposed by my colleague from the NDP, but we wish the government had kept its promise for a side agreement.

Water is likely to become one of the hottest commodities in the 21st century. Because the government did a poor job of managing this resource, we will have to pay the price one day. Canadians should realize that we are no longer sovereign over our water. Neither will our future generations be if something is not done to change this reality.

Bill C-15 or not, the bottom line is that Canada's water resources are vulnerable to export. While I am a strong supporter of free trade, I believe it should not come at the expense of our sovereignty over water. Decisions about bulk water export should rest in the hands of Canadians only, not with Americans, NAFTA or WTO.

Perhaps one day Canada will decide to export water if it is proven environmentally sound. If that ever happens, and I strongly stress if, the tap should belong to Canadians only.

[Festival Of Diwali, October 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26 Hindus and Sikhs in Canada will light their homes to celebrate the festival of Diwali. They will also pray for peace, harmony and prosperity for all humanity.

Diwali celebrates the triumph of knowledge and light over ignorance and darkness. Canada's Hindus and Sikhs feel proud to share this celebration with fellow citizens of all religious backgrounds.

For my part I have had the honour in the past to celebrate Diwali with my colleagues on Parliament Hill. Due to an imminent election Diwali celebrations in Ottawa will be postponed. However I invite my colleagues to celebrate Diwali with all their constituents.

On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues in the House of Commons, I wish Canadians of Indian descent a happy Diwali and a prosperous New Year.

[Volunteers, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to give my thanks to the countless volunteers who give their time and energy to make their communities a better place to live.

Last weekend I attended a volunteer appreciation night in the community of Dover. It was my pleasure to spend an evening with these dedicated volunteers whose commitment and efforts help to make Dover a better community for everyone.

I cannot stress strongly enough that these volunteers are a sense of pride for all Canadians.

I therefore today take great pride in acknowledging all volunteers who contribute to the following community associations in my riding: Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood Park, Marlborough, Marlborough Park, Crossroads, Dover, Erin Woods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Inglewood, Millican Ogden, Lynnwood, Penbrooke Meadows and Southview.

My heartfelt thanks go to all these community association volunteers. We are proud of them.

[Trade, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the WTO drug patent ruling is yet another example of the government wasting valuable time and money on a senseless dispute before the WTO. Canada's own negotiators involved with the TRIPS agreement said in May that this was an open and shut case. Yet the minister went ahead with an appeal that he knew would be lost when his priority should have been to inform Canadian consumers of the impact of the WTO decision. Why?

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-33, an act respecting the wildlife species at risk in Canada.

The title of the bill is the species at risk act. There is no Canadian who will not agree to do something about the risk to endangered species. I have received numerous letters from my constituents saying that they are concerned and would like me to support the bill. Why? Because the term species at risk raises the spectre that we are in danger of losing a species. I do not think any Canadian would accept that and Canadians would like to see something being done about it. When constituents write to me they are asking their member of parliament to do something about it.

I come from Calgary which is very close to one of the best national parks in the world, Banff National Park. Its natural wilderness is very dear to Albertans as it is to all Canadians. People have seen in the past the joys that nature and species bring and hence their concern about this issue.

I grew up in a land which has some of the best national parks in the world, the Ngorongoro crater and the Serengeti national park. Over the years I have seen the decline of the wild species habitat in those national parks. It pains me that they were roaming there in numbers but today they are on the endangered list. There are many reasons that they are on the endangered list. Primarily the loss of habitat has been through hunting, poaching and other illegal activities which put those species in danger.

It would be extremely shameful for humankind that we would be responsible for species being extinct. Many species around the world, even in the Amazon forest and other places, are in danger because of the reasons I have stated and it raises the question of what do we do.

In Canada the issue has been brought up. Many species are on the endangered list and Canadians would like us to take action. Naturally when the bill on species at risk came forward, Canadians felt they should support it.

In principle I do not think anyone in the House could not support the bill when it says species at risk. However the Canadian Alliance, as my colleagues have indicated previously, has a serious problem with the bill, not with the intent of the bill but with the way the bill has been drafted. We would like to make our position very clear. We are not and I repeat not opposing the bill for any frivolous reasons. We support the intent of the bill which is to protect the species at risk. However, we feel there is a different approach to achieve that result and not what the government is proposing in the bill.

I would like to highlight some points. Most important is that the bill gives the government the power to expropriate land. Down the road it may also give the power to the government to lay criminal charges against private landowners.

The government has gone one step further and said that in order to protect species it is trampling on other rights instead of working with a co-operative attitude. The problem with the bill is that when the government tries to do something it adds on something and it creates a situation where suddenly people are opposed to the bill.

It was the same with Bill C-68. We agree with the intent of Bill C-68 in that we want to keep guns away from the criminals, but the government came along with legislation that will make ordinary law-abiding citizens potential law breakers. That is where there is a serious problem with Bill C-33. It is similar to Bill C-68.

The government will come along and expropriate the land. The government will say to the landowners that it needs to take the land because it needs to protect the species and it leaves the compensation blank. There is nothing in the bill stating how the government is going to expropriate the land. What is it going to give? Is it going to give fair market value?

Property rights in our country are fundamental rights. Constitutionally we have the right to own property. However with this bill, while the government recognizes that there are property rights, it will expropriate. The bill does not go one step further to say that there is a fair compensation process. That creates a problem because in order to maintain their land, at the end of the day the landowners may not be in a co-operative mood.

There is a serious flaw in the bill. We would like to support the bill but it is our intention and that of our critic to bring forward amendments to the bill. I hope the government will listen to Canadians and amend the bill in such a manner that is acceptable to everyone.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague from the NDP. We definitely have a philosophical difference in how we would like to approach this for the benefit of the Canadian consumer. I am sure at the end of the day the member is thinking of the same thing, how the consumer can be protected, I will give him that but we have different ideas of how to do that. He wants government regulation. I tell him to look back in history and he will find that is not what has worked for Canadians. There are examples that at the end of the day competition, deregulation and less government control have benefited the Canadian consumer and the Canadian public.

Concerning his question about the finance minister becoming a powerful banking czar, I share the same concern with him. We do not want the finance minister to become a powerful czar. Nevertheless we feel that the parliamentary committee could have a role, at arm's length, as I said. It would ensure the finance minister would not have that much of a powerful role. Parliament has to play a role, MPs have to play a role and the committee could play a definite role in ensuring that one person does not have that much control.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very interesting summer for the Canadian Alliance. We chose a new leader. Canadians across the country are excited. As the NDP members were complaining this afternoon about the cost of my leader's fundraising dinner, I will tell them that Canadians are willing to pay to listen to the new leader. I am sure that if NDP members wanted to do fundraising they probably would not be able to attract too many people. I presume that is why they were complaining.

It my pleasure to speak to Bill C-38, an act to establish the financial consumer agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions.

When we talk about financial institutions, Canadians in general have some concerns. They are concerned about the way in which banks have been operating, about the monopoly they have had over the years and about how their profits have been increasing. These concerns arise from the fact that there is not much competition in the financial sector and that historically the banks have been protected. There were reasons in the past for doing that, most importantly to ensure the viability of the banking system in Canada, which at that time worked.

As we know, the business environment in Canada and around the world has changed. Today the environment calls for choices for the consumers. Canadian consumers have seen how much they benefit from deregulation and what happens when a government lets businesses loose. Lower costs for long distance telephone calls shows how a competitive environment can help Canadian consumers.

The demand by Canadian consumers, and rightly so, is for choices in the banking sector. The Canadian consumer is looking for lower service costs and better services. To some degree the negative image that the Canadian consumer has was brought on by the banks themselves. I am sure the banks can do a better job in letting the Canadian consumer know of the services they can provide.

There is the recent example of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines and the disaster it turned out to be during the early stages of the merger. Canadians are strongly concerned about the lack of competition in the airline industry. The government is dragging its feet as it does most of the time in coming up with solutions Canadians are looking for.

The government's go slow approach can be seen in this bill itself. It took seven years of foot dragging on the part of the government before it was able to bring forward some kind of legislation that has opened up the banking industry to higher competition.

We in the Canadian Alliance will live with this bill because we see it is opening up the financial sector as demanded by Canadians. We have a lot of concerns on many issues. We feel the financial sector is not completely open. There are other levels of bureaucracy being installed in here. Nevertheless there has been enough in this bill to allow competition to take place.

Members will remember the bank merger fiasco that took place and the hue and cry made by Canadians, and rightly so. Canadians felt there would be too much concentration of banks and less competition. Therefore there was a need for this kind of bill to come forward allowing the consumer to make choices and opening up the sector. Once the sectors are opened up, banks can merge and become global players in today's market.

As the critic for international trade I see the opportunity for banks as markets are being opened up all over the world. Definitely Canadian banks have a role and they can play a leading role in that they need to have bigger capital, bigger markets and a bigger pool of expertise as well. That is fine, but Canadians are concerned about what happens to the domestic market. Is it going to suffer at the expense of banks going into the international arena with mergers and consolidations?

That is a concern to our party as well. It is important that the Canadian banking sector be opened up to other players who can get in and pick up the niche if Canadian banks feel that they want to be out of the domestic market. Personally, I think it would be foolish for them to do so. Nevertheless, we need to allow competition to take place. Canadians need to know that they have choices and this bill to some degree will do that.

We have heard from our Bloc colleague as well as our colleague from the NDP. A very vague answer was given by my colleague from the PC Party in reference to medium size banks. Clearly, if we open up financial markets there are players who would be willing to pick up the niche. Medium size Canadian banks can become big banks, but we have to let the market forces play to some degree. Let them consolidate. Let them ensure they can seize the opportunities that are presented.

The question that will always remain is, what will happen to the Canadian consumer? We feel that with competition opening up, Canadian consumers will be very well protected. They will benefit from the opportunity of financial services that will open up in this country.

I will give an example. As the critic for international trade and with my work on the foreign affairs committee, I see the role of the Export Development Corporation. The committee heard from numerous witnesses involved with international trade who recognized the need for greater availability of capital for them to do business overseas. Close to 43% of the GDP is tied to exports and Canadian companies are always looking for capital. This is one area where the banks can now take advantage and should be able to offer to Canadian companies this opportunity by giving this service. In the past and until now they have been curtailed by EDC. EDC is kind of a crown corporation. It does not pay taxes. It has been politicized for so long that even many Canadians do not know what EDC is and what its role is.

We feel that the government competes directly with the banks through the Export Development Corporation. The Canadian Alliance feels that this competition should be abolished and that EDC should get out of the business of short and medium term export financing.

It is in the interest of all Canadians that banks are able to play a vital role in our economy. As it expands and we go into global markets, it is the banks that will be in the forefront to seize this opportunity in partnership with Canadian companies to create an economic environment that will benefit all Canadians. That is a key element in why the Canadian Alliance is in agreement to some degree with this bill which will allow the banks some flexibility.

Of course as usual the government has ensured that there are some tighter controls as well. It has introduced the financial consumer agency and the ombudsman. To some degree it looks very good. It looks like the government is trying to ensure that Canadian consumer interests are protected. However we have our past experience with the government. Who is going to be there? Will all the appointments be at arm's length or will they be more patronage positions for the Liberals to fill?

Every time the government introduces some kind of control or bodies where it has the absolute authority, perhaps a parliamentary committee could look at the appointments instead of the finance minister looking after those appointments. That would give tremendous confidence to everybody over appointments to these boards.

We notice that the government did not go very far in expanding the credit unions' role. That is one sector where it could expand and provide Canadian consumers with choices. We sincerely believe that choices for Canadian consumers will in the long run work to bring lower service costs, lower fees and better services to consumers. That does not mean to say that at this time the banks are not trying to provide service to consumers, they are. However with greater competition, innovative ideas will come forward. In order for the banks to retain their business they would definitely listen to the consumers. At the end of the day that is where the Canadian consumer is on all this opening up of the market.

In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting this bill based on the fact that it provides more and better choices for the Canadian consumer. We would like to see more competition in the market and I am sure our critic will bring in some amendments to ensure that that happens.

[International Organizations, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise and speak to this motion which was introduced by my colleague. The motion calls for co-operation among like-minded nations to develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations and prevent conflicts that have created havoc on civilian populations. This is a very important subject as today's conflicts are unfortunately using civilians as pawns in people's desire for power.

I will talk for a moment about what we see on television screens these days. We see conflicts, havoc, devastation and the misery that civilian populations are subjected to these days. The horror stories resulting from these conflicts boggles the mind. An urgent response from the international community is needed in order to respond to these cries for help. These are helpless civilians caught in a conflict for which they have no say.

What is even more tragic is that the majority of these conflicts taking place on continents around the world are against democracy. Democracy is under attack. Elected governments are under severe attack by individuals and organizations that have no ideological desire to improve the lot of the people but are attempting to seize power for their own egotistical desire for power. At the dawn of the 21st century, this is a serious concern that the world community must take into account.

Therefore, my colleague has introduced this motion asking that like-minded nations—when we talk about like-minded nations we are discussing countries that hold democratic values very high—put pressure on countries in conflict and work toward preventing these conflicts from taking place.

There is no point in reacting after the fact. As we have witnessed in the Rwanda genocide, in Kosovo and today in Sierra Leone, the conflicts explode so rapidly, with the civilian population being murdered, that by the time today's international intervention takes place, misery has already been created.

We witnessed the late reaction to Rwanda, the late reaction now to Sierra Leone and, to a degree, the late reaction even in Kosovo where when the international community finally came it was after thousands had already died or had been displaced from their homes. In Sierra Leone, tragically, many people had limbs cut off and children were being used as soldiers.

When we see these things at the dawn of the 21st century, we cannot understand how, with the rapid communications we have and the ability and co-operation we have, we continue to fail to address these issues.

This motion is asking that we address the issue far in advance, identify the areas of potential conflict and move in rapidly to diffuse the situation. We are now trying to address the issue through the international code, but this is after the fact when the damage has already been done to future generations.

We must, for the sake of democracy, for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the children, address this issue now.

What is the driving force that creates these conflicts? Prior to the collapse of the cold war, we had ideologies that drove these conflicts. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cold war, we now see a marked change in these conflicts. They have now moved in order to fulfil some people's egos. They are fueled by money.

The key issue is that these conflicts are no longer supported by other ideological nations but are supported by money. Where is the money coming from? It is quite sad to see the conflicts that are now being fueled by money. Who is financing these conflicts?

In many Latin American countries, the money comes from drug sales. Where does the money come from on the continent of Africa? It comes from the rich diamond fields. For those engaged in the conflicts today it has become very evident that they are in control of the natural resources and specifically diamonds. They market these diamonds in the international marketplace, take the money and then fuel their war where they create misery.

Aside from plundering the natural wealth, which is not being used to advance the social fabric, the democratic fabric nor the lives of the citizens of that nation, this has been squandered and has helped fuel the majority of the wars that are taking place in many countries around the world.

We in the developed world have the ability to starve off the financial resources that these people are getting by helping to identify the potential future areas of conflict and diffuse them. We are bound to create a situation where they can no longer access money from the international market by selling their diamonds or other natural products, including drugs.

More important, we know from experience that sanctions are not working. Iraq is one example of where sanctions have not worked. In many other countries in the world sanctions have not worked. If sanctions have not worked, what else will work? Dialogue? Diplomacy? Those are good ideas but how will we put pressure on them? In the first place, these people who are responsible for the conflict have refused to listen to the voice of reason.

We are asking all members of the House to look at this motion and at its long term implication that will help solve and prevent conflicts. This is an extremely important motion to me. I hope all my colleagues in the House see the motion in that capacity and support it.

[Export Development Corporation, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, ombudsman or no ombudsman, the response of the Minister for International Trade to a review of EDC is nothing but half-measures and missed opportunities.

The minister failed to address the issue of transparency, accountability and politicization of the lending practises of EDC. Canadians want accountability from this crown corporation. The minister continues to ignore this demand. Why?

[Export Development Corporation, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today's response by the trade minister to the review of the Export Development Act represents nothing less than a lost opportunity for the government to tackle issues of transparency, accountability, competition with the private sector and the politicization of EDC's lending practices.

As a federal crown corporation, the EDC must be prepared for a certain level of transparency and accountability to the Canadian taxpayer. The EDC must not compete directly with the private sector and must operate within the tested and recognized international environmental framework of the World Bank.

Finally, the EDC must not be used as a political tool for this government to provide jobs and financial rewards to its friends. This response reveals who is really pulling the strings of this minister and the department.

What the EDC wants the EDC gets.

This minister chose to take his marching orders from the EDC rather than the elected representatives or the Canadian taxpayer.