Laurin Liu

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the NDP cannot support this bill, and one of the reasons is that it will prevent thousands of Canadians from exercising their right to vote. Furthermore, it diminishes the Chief Electoral Officer's powers. I read the bill very carefully and I would like to point out a problem I found: the Chief Electoral Officer will have to seek Treasury Board approval before hiring technical experts. As we know, the Chief Electoral Officer occasionally hires external companies to conduct investigations or to write reports. Having to ask for Treasury Board approval means that the government will be interfering in the work of an officer of Parliament, and I see that as problematic.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she did not support the NDP motion to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power to compel testimony and the ability to order the release of financial documents. That motion would have increased the commissioner's powers, which would have boosted Canadians' confidence in the electoral system. Why did she not support the NDP motion?

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the principle of Bill C-474. It would require Canadian mining, oil and gas corporations to submit annual transparency reports that disclose all payments provided by them or their subsidiaries to a foreign government for the purpose of furthering mining, oil or gas industry activities.

Under the bill, any corporation that fails to comply with this requirement is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of anywhere between $20,000 and $5 million.

This is essentially about ensuring that Canadian corporations are held accountable for any payments made for doing business abroad and that foreign governments can be held accountable, in the court of public opinion, for the money they receive.

In the late 1990s, a number of economists and observers focused on the resource curse phenomenon. They tried to understand the paradox of why two-thirds of the world's poorest people live in countries that are rich in natural resources.

For example, Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Terry Lynn Karl and Paul Collier, to name a few, noted that many countries with an abundance of natural resources, oil, gas and mines, were not realizing their full potential. There are a few exceptions, but many countries rich in energy resources are very corrupt and lack transparency.

These researchers noted that the revenues from extractive industries are often managed by a few elites, a small minority of individuals who control the country's resources.

The multinational companies that are competing for access to natural resources are often complicit in maintaining the rules established by these elites and help them to stay in power. They are reluctant to give information on their profits and the share they give to the elites. If people knew how much their government got from the extraction of their country's natural resources, it would be easier to monitor how that revenue is being spent.

The researchers I mentioned earlier proposed a series of complex and sometimes contradictory measures to ensure that local populations benefit as much as possible from natural resources. However, they all agreed that transparency is needed to put an end to what is called the resource curse.

The writings of these researchers resulted in an array of initiatives. Just think about the work that Oxfam and Human Rights Watch have done in this regard. There is also the initiative on the Caspian region's petrodollars and the Publish What You Pay campaign on the poor management of oil in Angola, led by George Soros' Revenue Watch Institute.

Then, in October 2002, at the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, Tony Blair spoke about these campaigns by civil society. The next year, the extractive industries transparency initiative was born to ensure transparency of payments made and revenues generated by extractive industries and to make that information accessible to civil society and the general public, thereby promoting the proper use of these resources. For now, the standard is voluntary, but it is garnering more and more support.

Calls for greater transparency began just over a decade ago, and existing initiatives are part of a global trend fuelled by the global financial crisis and the need to manage the corporate world's conduct, particularly when it comes to fiscal agreements and the fight against corruption.

In 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States introduced new rules under the Dodd-Frank Act requiring American companies to disclose payments made to a foreign government for mining, oil and gas development activities.

The European Parliament and many other democracies subsequently implemented similar rules. Unfortunately, Canada is lagging behind.

The question is, why target resource extraction companies? First, as I explained earlier, natural resource royalties are easier for corrupt governments to divert than fiscal revenues, which are overseen by a large number of public officials.

Second, according to Transparency International's 2011 Bribe Payers Index, oil and gas and mining companies rank fourth and fifth, respectively, as the most likely industries to pay bribes. Companies in the mining and oil and gas sectors are second and third most likely to engage in grand corruption targeting high-level public officials and politicians.

It remains to be seen whether the new disclosure requirements will affect Canadian companies' ability to compete with companies that are not required to disclose. Opponents to mandatory reporting, including the Conservative members of the House, have complained about the effect of releasing what they consider to be sensitive information to rivals, making competition one of the cornerstones of their arguments against implementing new standards.

However, since the United States and the European Union are pursuing mandatory disclosure, about 90% of the world's largest mining and oil companies will be covered, according to Transparency International. This includes companies such as U.S.-listed PetroChina, London-listed Russian company Rosneft, and Brazilian mining company Vale, also listed on a U.S. stock exchange.

Furthermore, most of the Canadian giants, like Barrick Gold, will have to comply with the American rules. It will be hard for them to argue that the Canadian rules cause them more problems than the American rules. Furthermore, the executive director of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada does not expect any new legislation to erode the competitive environment for Canadian firms abroad, given the large number of companies that will have to reveal payments:

The biggest problem is going to be setting up and adjusting to any new accounting system. The challenge is to develop a framework where resource companies don’t have to duplicate information for various jurisdictions.

However, beyond the issue of competition, I think Canadians expect Canadian companies to have impeccable business practices and to lead by example.

In June 2013, in London, the Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada was establishing new mandatory reporting standards for Canadian extractive companies in order to increase transparency regarding the payments that these companies make to foreign governments.

I must say, I am somewhat skeptical, because this government is always reluctant to regulate private companies. The Conservatives prefer to champion self-regulation and deregulation. Let us not forget, for instance, how they axed environmental assessments to please the big oil companies.

The government has announced consultations with the industry and the provinces. I hope the government will open up those consultations to the public. How ironic it would be, to say the least, if those consultations on transparency were to take place behind closed doors.

In closing, I am pleased to support Bill C-474, which has three objectives: first, to ensure transparency around the payments made and revenues generated by the extractive industries; second, to make this information available to civil society and the general public; and third, to promote the proper use of this wealth. Some people will say that the bill does not go far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill so that it can be studied in committee.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised the issue of the lack of data, which is required to crack down on counterfeiting. Then there is my Liberal Party colleague, who said that the problem did not exist when his party was in power.

An OECD report published in 1998 concluded that it was difficult to measure the scope of counterfeiting and imitation merchandise in Canada. Since this has been an issue since 1998, it is completely false to say that it did not exist when the Liberal Party was in power.

Why did his party not do more to address this issue when it was in power?

[Science and Technology, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member might skate around the question, but the fact remains that the Conservative government's disdain for knowledge has reached new lows. It turns out that not only did it shut down seven world-class libraries at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans but also it made taxpayers foot the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in costs to destroy valuable material.

Why are the Conservatives in such a rush to destroy Canada's scientific heritage?

[Science and Technology, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' attacks on science and knowledge are now targeting libraries.

Since 2012, dozens of departmental libraries have been closed down. Scientists, public servants and Canadians are losing access to very important documents. Canada has become a laughingstock around the world as a result of this unacceptable destruction of information.

Will the Conservatives stop preventing Canadians and scientists from accessing books and knowledge?

[Canada Post, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing down their path of destruction, and this time they are attacking Canada Post. They are cutting home delivery service in urban areas, increasing rates and eliminating 6,000 to 8,000 jobs. Now I find out that effective March 4, the Saint-Eustache post office will become a postal service centre and that the number of client service employees will be cut.

In short, people are being asked to pay more for less service. However, the postal service has been profitable for 16 of the past 17 years. The only year the corporation posted a deficit was 2011, the year employees were locked out.

It is time for real consultations on Canada Post. Seniors, people with reduced mobility, the municipalities and SMEs have to be heard.

[The Environment, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the Conservatives continue to govern with their blinders on.

We have recently learned that they hired an oil lobbyist to advise them on the transfer of the Experimental Lakes Area. These lakes are international scientific and environmental gems that do not exist anywhere else. The Conservatives do not care about the opinion of scientists. They think that the oil industry is much better suited to make decisions about scientific research.

Why did the Conservatives hire a friend of the oil industry to consult on the Experimental Lakes Area?

[Abortion, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion in Canada by striking down section 251 of the Criminal Code. Part of the ruling reads as follows:

Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person.

The right of Canadian women to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is not a done deal. The Conservatives have introduced three bills as well as Motion No. 312 to eliminate that right. In addition, young Canadian women are facing more and more economic and social uncertainty because the Conservatives are behind the times when it comes to gender equality.

The NDP believes it is time to take action.

[Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition regarding the Experimental Lakes Area. This file has been unresolved for quite some time, and yet petitions continue to come in. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the importance of the Experimental Lakes Area in fulfilling its mandate to study, preserve and protect aquatic ecosystems.

[Electronic Petitions, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 428 about e-petitions. This initiative was put forward by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—Douglas, a meticulous and effective parliamentarian, and a champion of democracy.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the Conservative government has a very poor record when it comes to democratic participation. First, the Conservatives tried to prevent citizens from participating in environmental assessments. Then they muzzled scientists and librarians. After that, they started a witch hunt against environmental organizations that oppose their policies.

The NDP believes that citizens should have the opportunity to participate in democracy, to intervene and to express their opinions about the government's policies. This motion, which encourages citizen involvement, is in line with our philosophy.

I would like to explain how the system works now. As we all know, petitions have always been a key part of our democratic system. People use petitions to draw Parliament's attention to a problem.

Right now, electronic petitions cannot be presented in the House of Commons by members because they do not comply with the Standing Orders. As a result, the government is not required to provide an official response to e-petitions the way it does to paper-based petitions.

Motion No. 428 recommends updating the rules governing the format of petitions and studying the possibility of letting e-petitions trigger a debate in the House of Commons once a certain number of signatures have been collected and if at least five members sponsor a petition.

Clearly, the Standing Orders need updating. The House of Commons has to get with the times and take into account what Canadians are thinking now that they are making increasing use of electronic means to communicate and join forces on political issues. We have to give people more ways to participate in their democracy; we have to adapt democracy to 21st-century realities. If we do not, Parliament will become more and more useless, perhaps even insignificant. Anyone who looks at the other chamber, the Senate, will see that is true.

Right now, thousands of Canadians feel left out and powerless when it comes to decisions made in the House. I happen to agree. The current rules have led to a growing divide between people and the government.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to an online survey of Canadians carried out by Samara in December 2012, only 55% of Canadians report being satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada. This number is going down, since it used to be 75% in 2004. To combat this democratic deficit, we need to start listening to Canadians again. They need to feel that their voices are being heard.

I will digress for a moment to point out that this is why we are calling for reform of the Elections Act. We need to give more powers to Elections Canada, so that it can more effectively combat election fraud.

We have been seeing the worst kinds of abuse from the Conservative Party in recent years. For example, there were the misleading phone calls to deny voters their right to vote; the bending of the rules on political party funding, which is known as the Conservative in and out scandal; and the election schemes of the former Conservative minister from Labrador, who failed to declare election expenses. Furthermore, the current member for Peterborough is facing four charges in court regarding overspending during the 2008 election campaign.

These despicable actions are alienating Canadians from politics, since they get the impression that they do not really have a say in the matter. They come to believe that the only things taken seriously are the interests of the Conservative Party's big contributors and their friends.

I could also talk about the need to change our voting system to make sure that every vote counts. Many changes need to be made to our electoral and parliamentary system, but I will save that for another day because my time is short.

More fundamentally, we need to fix the Elections Act to regain Canadians' trust. It is also important to change the rules governing how our parliamentary institutions operate so that we can better connect with Canadians. Petition reform is part of that overall plan. Unlike the Conservatives, we want more than ever to strengthen Canadian democracy and to do everything we can to get Canadians involved in the debates that affect them because, ultimately, this is their House of Commons. We want to give Canadians a chance to have a say in Parliament's agenda. That is why Motion No. 428, which was moved by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, calls for the use of electronic petitions in the House. I wish to make it clear, however, that we do not want to do away with the current Standing Order with regard to paper petitions. Both paper and electronic petitions will be accepted.

I can attest to the fact that my colleague has done an excellent job of garnering support within all political parties. On the left, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent supported the initiative by saying:

Bringing electronic petitioning to the House of Commons is a 21st Century idea and one I fully endorse. Empowering Canadians to come together and help set the Parliamentary agenda will breathe fresh air into our democracy.

My colleague also had the support of Preston Manning, a well-known political figure in our country, who clearly stated:

To be able to petition one's elected representatives, and to have such petitions addressed, is one of the oldest and most basic of democratic rights. Affirming and re-establishing this right in the 21st century through electronic petitioning is an idea well worth pursuing.

Similarly, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes this motion:

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applauds this worthy initiative from the member [for Burnaby—Douglas] to kick-start Parliament on accepting electronic signatures on petitions. When taxpayers get the opportunity to go online and sign an official petition to Parliament, they'll be able to get the attention of Ottawa politicians in a hurry. We also support the [member's] suggestion that 50,000 Canadians signing a petition and 5 MPs should be able to force a debate in Parliament. This would help restore some grassroots democracy and accountability on Parliament Hill.

According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in March 2013, Canadians, including my constituents, widely support the principles of Motion No. 418. The pollster found that 81% of Canadians either support or strongly support the use of electronic petitions as a way to present their concerns to the federal government. It is important to understand that this motion represents real progress towards improving Canadian democracy and the vitality of our participatory institutions.

Promoting and adopting this motion are one more step towards creating a healthier, more transparent democracy. This is a tangible step with clear and demonstrable repercussions on how important issues are represented in parliamentary debates. It will also allow us to productively channel the widespread discontent regarding Canadian democracy and many of its institutions, including the Senate, where the Conservatives are now showing their true colours. I think it is absolutely crucial that our constituents be included in the political process, and such a motion would be one of the best ways to encourage them to actively participate in our public debates.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion in order to lead off the debate on the future of electronic petitions in our country.