Olivia Chow

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives and Liberals say that they are tough on crime and yet here they are allowing corporate polluters who commit serious environmental crimes to get off easy, allowing them to have alternative measures agreements rather than guilty pleas and criminal records.

Corporate offenders who put toxic substances into water, which destroys fish habitats, should face stiff fines or even jail time if they are convicted. Canada needs tougher legislation to protect fish habitat and our lakes, rivers and oceans. The fishing industry needs clear standards that are applied equally to every polluter.

We need to protect our coastlines and our aquatic ecosystems. The biological integrity of the Great Lakes is already under stress by the invasive species and climate change.

Why is the Liberal Party not opposing this terrible Bill C-45, the new fisheries act that declares our water and our environment open season for corporate polluters? Where is the Liberal leader who claims that environmental integrity and protection are supremely important? Why is the Liberal Party supporting this bill?

[Petitions, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table petitions from many seniors across the greater Toronto area. These seniors believe that the unification of seniors with their families in Canada through immigration is a core aspect of forming strong, healthy and vibrant families and communities in Canada and that newcomer seniors currently suffer unfairly from the 10 year residency requirement under Canada's income security programs.

They say that Canada's old age security, guaranteed income supplement and social assistance programs are age, capacity, and needs based benefit programs, not income security plans based on individual contributions. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to amend the Old Age Security Act regulations and policies to eliminate the 10 year residency requirement for the OAS and guaranteed income supplement.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is, why just Air Canada? It is important that airlines like Porter Airlines or WestJet also meet all official language requirements.

Airlines flying from Toronto Pearson International Airport are under a lot of stress because while Pearson has 33% of Canada's air traffic, it has to pay 63% of the national rent. A fair rent deal at Pearson airport is important because Porter Airlines, for example, has a monopoly at the Toronto airport and it is important to create a level playing field. A fair rent deal for Pearson would improve flight service for travellers, create economic growth and employment opportunities.

If we do that we have to also reduce the rent for Pearson but also ensure that all the airlines deliver quality services in both languages. Is that the intent of the bill eventually, that we would include all the other airlines?

[Petitions, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have hundreds of petitions from people from across Canada asking the government to create mandatory regulations and inspections to ensure the food that our cats and dogs are eating is safe and of high quality.

The petitioners are concerned that the contaminated pet food that was sold in Canada is causing harm to animals; that no federal department or agency is responsible for monitoring or informing the public about potentially harmful pet food; and that the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union all have regulations for the manufacture of pet food. They, therefore, call upon the government to take action.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tell every forestry worker who has been laid off in the last few years that chapter 11 of NAFTA is doing a marvellous job for them. Tell them that. Tell them it has certainly empowered the Canadian government and all the lumber companies.

Guess what? About $1 billion of Canadian money was left. Even though we won, so what? We gave up that right. It does not matter whether we win or not because we have a government that will actually reward the bullies who are completely ignoring trade agreements, even though we win.

Yet, over and over again, and we just saw the softwood lumber sellout, we said we will back-off and we left $1 billion on the table. Think of what $1 billion could do for those hard-working families in northern Ontario and Quebec who are losing their jobs because of this softwood sellout.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I remember in the debate on free trade former Prime Minister John Turner saying, “We are going to oppose free trade”. Then I remember Mr. Chrétien running in an election saying, “We are going to tear up the trade deal”. What happened? Speaking about changing their tune, not only did we sign on to NAFTA, but chapter 11 did not get torn up. It did not get negotiated properly. It did not get renegotiated even though it was promised over and over again that there would be some kind of renegotiation. What happened?

What is happening now with chapter 11 is multinational companies are allowed to sue, whether it is municipalities, provinces or other governments. I remember the case of Hudson where the local government said that it would ban pesticides. It was sued under chapter 11. How much money did that cost the taxpayers in Hudson and taxpayers across Canada? And why can a local government not decide to ban pesticides?

Do not tell me about changing tunes because I know that is a Liberal habit.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Yes, child care, the environment, retrofitting of homes, there are any number of things that one could do with $350 million.

If the international mechanism is not transparent, if it is stacked against citizens, then it is harmful for democracy, for the environment. Ultimately it is the taxpayers, whether they are in Toronto, Timmins, James Bay or anywhere across Canada that it is going to hurt.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea. In the years that I was a Toronto city councillor, I never heard of such a fellow. It is the hard-working taxpaying people of Toronto who paid for all the studies on the Adams Mine. I have never heard of that fellow, but I do know what $350 million can buy. It can buy very good training programs for young people, whether they are in northern Ontario or in the very much at risk neighbourhoods in downtown Toronto or Hamilton. I know $350 million would create jobs. It would create a tremendous amount of recreational activities for our young people. Summer is coming.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking against implementing this International Centre for Settlement of International Investment Disputes and I will tell the House why.

A recently released report entitled, “Challenging Corporate Investor Rule”, shows that nearly 70% of cases brought to the investment dispute centre, an institution of the World Bank group by the way, settled in favour of the investor, with compensation being awarded against the country where the investment failed.

The report notes that in 7 out of 109 cases filed with ICSID, the investor's revenues exceeded the gross domestic product of the country they were suing. The case I will be describing may add to the number of these cases. These developing countries must pay fines that far exceed the gross domestic product.

The Center for International Environmental Law says that the arbitration raises a number of problems. I will describe to the House what is currently one of the big cases in front of this settlement dispute centre.

The U.K. based British investor, Biwater Gauff, is demanding $25 million from the Government of Tanzania after the latter terminated its contract with City Water Services in 2005, allegedly because the company had failed to provide clean drinking water to millions of people in Dar es Salaam. Paying $25 million to this British company is a tremendous amount of money for a very poor country like Tanzania. Biwater's 10 year contract to provide water service in this city was terminated by the Tanzanian government in 2005, only two years after it began operations in 2003. Why was that the case? It is because the Tanzanian government said that the company had not been able to provide clean water as it was supposed to for its citizens.

Normally one would think that engaging a private operator for running water service commercially is a radical departure from the free service tradition in place in that country since 1991. Why did Tanzania privatize its drinking water? It was one of the conditions imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in order for Tanzania to qualify for debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. Similarly, the World Bank's 2000 country assistance strategy made the signing of a concession agreement assigning the assets of this place to a private management company one of the conditions Tanzania had to meet in order to qualify for enhanced annual loans.

How did these heavily indebted poor countries get indebted in the first place? It was because the World Bank was lending them money with huge interest rates and they could not provide the debt repayment. It is an absurd situation where poor countries are sending more money to rich countries. The World Bank is telling them that in order for it to lend them even more money they must privatize their water.

This U.K. based British investor Biwater then goes in and privatizes their water. It tells the poor folks in Tanzania that it will deliver clean water but it did not do so after two years of operation. The government rightly said that it would not continue with the contract but the company took the dispute to the international centre. Seventy per cent of these cases end up in favour of the investors. It is biased against a lot of these poor developing countries.

Another organization, the Center for International Environmental Law, says that the arbitration case I am talking about raises a number of issues of vital concern to the local community in Tanzania, as well as for other developing countries that have privatized or are contemplating a possible privatization of water and other essential infrastructure services. Another organization, Public Services International, says that this dispute shows how problematic it is to include investment rules in trade investment agreements, particularly if they include investor-state provisions which allow the investor to sue host governments at international tribunals.

One of the problems with this dispute settlement mechanism is that the public has no way of knowing how the decisions are taken. The decision is not transparent. It is not clear how much the government is expected to pay if the government ends up losing. As a result, the public cannot hold a government or foreign corporate entities to account, or judge the legitimacy of the decisions. This erodes democracy.

Furthermore, because the decision is made in a body that will not be disclosed to the public, it has far reaching effects. It would seriously erode the sovereign authority of the Canadian state, and Canadians would have no say in the course of proceedings.

Instead of rushing in without any discussion with our public environmental groups and all the other NGOs, we should look at this situation very carefully.

In the case of Tanzania, what we have now is the Center for International Environmental Law from Switzerland, the Lawyers' Environmental Action Team, the Legal and Human Rights Centre, and the International Institute for Sustainable Development filing support letters and helping Tanzania in defending its case before the dispute settlement centre.

Instead of rushing in, we should ensure there is better international investment, which can bring substantial benefits to developing countries. We need to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework that actively promotes sustainable development and ensures that environmental limits are preserved.

We need to create the right regulatory framework for sustainable investment. It would require action at the regional, national and international levels.

We need frameworks that would provide host countries with the flexibility and ability to control investment flows that undermine their sustainable development targets as developed through transparent and consultative processes.

At the international level, there needs to be cooperation between states in consultation with civil society to ensure that existing and future bilateral or regional investment treaties allow host countries to set minimum environmental standards and prohibit the lowering of environmental standards to attract investment.

We need to make sure that legal barriers to suing foreign investors and forcing judgment in home countries are removed. We need to make sure detailed binding regulations are developed in environmentally sensitive industries, for example, in the chemicals and minerals industries, and that restrictive business practices such as transfer pricing, investment incentives, and bribery and corruption are addressed.

The host or recipient countries, supported by development assistance and in consultation with civil society, should strengthen their environmental and economic governance structures to support sustainable investment. That means taking measures to integrate environmental objectives into key sectoral policies such as energy, transport and agriculture and develop integrated policy packages that balance investors' rights with public needs.

Measures are needed to ensure foreign investors and domestic companies disclose any environmental and social impacts. We should also make sure that investment related activities are fully covered by environmental laws and policies including the polluter pays principle.

Home or investing countries should create mechanisms to lever additional funds from investors for projects aimed at sustainable development. Assistance to investors should be conditional on good environmental performance, for example, through export credit agencies. Development assistance that supports recipient country efforts to develop good environmental and social governance should be provided.

There also should be a mandatory code of conduct for companies to prevent those following environmental best practice from being undermined by unscrupulous competitors. At a minimum, companies must adhere to the existing OECD guidelines for multinational corporations.

Taken together, these measures and others should ensure that a proper balance is struck between protecting the rights of investors and promoting public goods. Once these measures are in place, perhaps Canada would be in a position to discuss the implementation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. If we do not have that, we would be prematurely rushing in a World Bank mechanism that is now hurting a lot of developing countries.

[Old Age Security Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a citizen is a citizen. A citizen who is a senior has been living in Canada, pays income taxes, GST and property taxes, Therefore, why do some seniors qualify for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and others do not?

Six months before their 65th birthdays, seniors living in Canada have something to which they can forward. They can apply for old age security and on their birthdays they receive a cheque. No matter what their income levels, they receive a monthly pension cheque.

Some seniors come from countries that have social security agreements with Canada. They could be in Canada for a year, or three years or five years, and they may or may not be citizens. Even after just being in Canada for one year, they receive the old age security. That is fine. We totally agree with this. If that senior is in need of extra support, that senior can combine the Canada pension plan and receive the guaranteed income supplement if the level of income is below a certain poverty line.

Seniors who come to Canada from countries that have no social security agreements with Canada, even though they could be working, contributing to the society and paying their taxes, do not qualify for old age security even though they have been in Canada for five or eight years and are Canadian citizens. That is not fair.

Ordinary Canadians expect the Canadian pension system to be fair. They expect some social justice and equity. They feel that all citizens should receive old age security, no matter what country they come from or how long they have been in Canada.

The bill in front of us would change the residency requirement from 10 years to 3 years, and the NDP supports that proposal. We understand there is a historical problem that dates back to 1977. The NDP has spoken out about this injustice for many years. After all, the founder of the whole concept of old age security and pension was Tommy Douglas, the former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. We have always envisioned that old age security and pension would cover all seniors living in Canada. We know that quite a few seniors live in poverty.

We understand that approximately 17% of seniors live in poverty. This is almost one in five seniors. Of these folks, 71% are women and 29% are men. Twice as many women lived with low incomes, and these women are seniors. Many of them have contributed, but are unable to receive old age security.

We have noticed there has been massive support from the community. We want to thank the member of Parliament for Surrey North. She has moved a motion in Parliament to remove this unjustified 10 year residency requirement. The motion is also in front of Parliament right now.

There are also other groups such as the Alternative Planning Group and Immigrant Seniors Advocacy Network forum, which represents African Canadian Social Development Council, Chinese Canadian National Council, Hispanic Development Council and the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians. They are pushing the Canadian government to be more flexible and accommodating in treating immigrant seniors as equal members of the Canadian family by eliminating the 10 year residency requirement.

We also received a Vancouver city council resolution, approved on March 15, 2005. It says:

THAT Vancouver City Council request the Federal Government to ensure pension equality for all Canadian senior citizens, regardless of their country of origin and whether or not that country has a social services contract with Canada...

We also received from the Women Elders in Action group whose pension conference recommended that every individual, who was a permanent resident of Canada, at age 65 be entitled to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and that these pensions needed to at least meet the low income threshold cut-off levels to reduce the potential abuse of elders.

A seniors summit at the Vancouver Declaration also stated that we needed to change the rule so immigrants would be eligible for pensions. We have seen petitions with 10,000 signatures in support of eliminating the 10 year residency requirement.

We know there is massive support out in the community. We know it does not require a large amount of money to level the field so there is equity. That is why I do not quite understand why the Liberal members of Parliament a few months ago did not support the amendment at the committee on human resources when we were debating Bill C-36 on pensions.

I recall the Bloc had a motion which was supported by the NDP. Given this is a minority government in a minority Parliament, with the support of the Liberals that amendment would have been passed at committee. Because Bill C-36 is a government bill, it would have come back to the House of Commons. We would have had this old problem fixed. Never mind the 13 years of the former Liberal government never dealing with this problem.

Right now what we have in front of us is a private members' bill. We are supporting it. However, we thought the opportunity with Bill C-36 was a missed opportunity.

Let us collectively vote in favour of this private member's bill and change the residency with regard to old age security so seniors do not have to live in poverty. They would qualify for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Let us get the private member's bill to the human resources committee and have it come back to the House for support so we can right this historical wrong.