Paul Dewar

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this morning when we were discussing the other bill from the Senate I talked of the need to actually get Canada in the game again. The member talked about some aspects in the bill, about fines versus deregistering on the stock exchange that some have talked about in terms of critique. By and large, I think everyone is on board with this idea. The G8 is coming up and this will be front and centre. The question is will the government be onside with transparency?

I assume my colleague has full support of his own party. Is the government saying it is against this initiative based on merit or is it based on politics? If it is based on politics, how does he see this in light of what is about to happen in the G8, where this is going to be front and centre and something that Prime Minister Cameron is focusing on? I would like to get the member's comments on that.

[Committees of the House, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I underlined this point. I do not think their policy is actually dealing with the present reality and looking to the future. It is in the past.

I will give an example. As I mentioned at the end of my speech, I was talking to a group that is going to the east of Congo to look at what is happening on the ground. Instead of kids the age of your children, Mr. Speaker, working in mines to extract coltan so we can have it in our cellphones, which is feeding the war there, we want to see a change, to invest in a clean supply chain, just like we did with blood diamonds. That is innovation. That is helping deal with the conflict. That is helping deal with the outcomes for these kids who are becoming child soldiers. They are living under horrific conditions that all of our kids should never even have to contemplate. That is what is happening there.

I am sorry, but Rio Tinto is not going to go there. What is in it for them? If it were a business decision, they would not go there. What happens if a region does not have a Rio Tinto? Are we going to forget about it? Is that what we are talking about here?

[Committees of the House, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the dissenting opinion we had on this. If we look at best practices in the world, and we look at what we are facing with a multipolar world where the BRIC countries are more and more going to be influencing the world economy, we have to get on with innovation and stop living in the past. As I said with regard to the current government, the Conservatives are living in the past. We have to embrace things like transparency and best practices. That is what we put into this report with the dissenting opinion.

It could have been that we heard things differently, or perhaps it was the analysis we took from the witnesses we heard, but what we heard was that it is clear that everyone is getting on board with innovations and ensuring that when we are talking about development we have goals in mind. It should not be just about the benefit for Canadian companies; it should be about the benefit for the people we are trying to help. It is that simple. The policies of the current government actually undermine that, which is strange because it undermines the legislation we passed here, the ODA Accountability Act.

[Committees of the House, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we had a little bit of debate, as much as one can have these days in this Parliament, about the merging of different departments. I say that in sadness, because we had a couple of meetings to talk about the merging of CIDA with DFAIT, which, as we have said, could be a great idea.It is about who does it.

Who is going to influence whom here? Is it going to be CIDA officials, who have expertise in CSR, affecting trade folks with their expertise there? Ideally, there should be some sharing going on.

What our friends south of the border and in the U.K. have noticed is that to be serious about development, it should be aligned with foreign policy, and the foreign policy should be in line with things such as human rights and democratic development. However, the Conservative government has not done that, which is its biggest challenge.

When we see this new merging of these departments, it is about whose voice is going to be heard the most and who will be influencing whom. At the end of the day, it will be about people, I gather. However, structurally, this is something we should be looking at.

[Committees of the House, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her point of view. However, I do not think she understands that what we are talking about here is innovation. What she is talking about is an old-school way of development.

The old school was basically this: A company from one's country sets up shop and brings in some ancillary resources to help. It looks good and has signature projects. That is far in the past. Everyone is looking at the new model of transparency. That is why I say the Conservatives are stuck in the past.

Every one of those witnesses, including the ones the member referred to, especially from the U.K., were saying to get on board with the EITI and full transparency of Canadian companies that are doing business abroad. The Conservative are not there yet. Hopefully they will be by the time we have the meetings in England. Right now, in Sydney, Australia, they will be talking about strengthening EITI.

Do members know who has been called out on this by the G8? I recommend that everyone here, specifically the parliamentary secretary, read about what have been described as the two outliers on EITI and strengthening transparency in the G8. They are Russia and Canada. Is that what we want? Do we want to be seen as laggards?

We should be leading in this, which is why, on this one, I am afraid that the parliamentary secretary and the government are out of touch with present circumstances.

[Committees of the House, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 6th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 be concurred in.

It is with great interest and importance that we talk today about the report by the foreign affairs committee on the role of the private sector in international development.

We were talking earlier this morning about corruption and the importance of ensuring that when Canadian companies are doing their business abroad, there are tight rules on their operations abroad. Canada is quite involved in international business, and we need to look at how Canada conducts its affairs abroad.

In the report to the House, we were looking at the role of the private sector when it comes to international development. We had a dissenting opinion on the report. I will underline those points in a moment. Essentially, the government wanted to talk about how the private sector can be involved in international development.

On the surface, this is not a controversial issue. The problem is the way the government understands the issue. When it comes to international development and the involvement of the private sector abroad, we have seen some quite strange policy development by the government. This so-called innovation of the government of having NGOs work in tandem with mining companies is somehow seen as progressive. Most of us on this side see it as a throwback. It was done way in the past and is not seen as innovative by most of our partners.

When we talk about the role of the private sector in international development, to most enlightened people, it is about whose private sector it is. On this side, we believe that it is the host government's private sector we should be working with: small businesses, small entrepreneurs, and particularly women.

The U.K., the United States and other partners we have understand that if we are to get things moving, we need to work on the ground with people to ensure that the money we are investing gets to the right people.

It is timely that we are talking about this, because former Secretary General to the United Nations, Kofi Annan, just brought forward an important report on what is happening in the continent of Africa, which every parliamentarian should look at. He underlined that when we have developments in Africa, there is a lot of growth there. There is a lot of economic activity. What is happening, sadly, because of lack of proper governance and oversight, is that companies from other continents, and Canada is part of that, go in, and the money goes out. The money is not staying there. That is what Mr. Annan pointed out.

We have to open the data and look beyond growth numbers. Sadly, countries are stagnant in terms of growth and the basic indicators of human health.

We see economic activity. We see a lot of profits being taken out of the continent, but not benefits to the people there. That is why it is so important, if we are to look at the private sector's involvement in international development, to better understand who the actors are.

When the government puts forward policies to support mining companies and fund NGOs to work side by side with mining companies, we have to understand the role of the private sector. As one witness at our committee said, it is about whose private sector. Is it the private sector of Canada we are trying to help, or is it the private sector of the host governments in those developing countries we are trying to support?

These are the key recommendations.

CIDA should emphasize economic growth in its overall development strategy. That is not controversial.

CIDA should develop a specific policy for including the private sector in its development strategy. On the surface, that is not controversial, as long as we understand the issue I just talked about.

CIDA should pursue loans and partnerships with private companies. We would have to look into that a bit.

Encourage CSR and democratic oversight in countries with significant natural resource sectors. This is the part on which we had a debate with the government. It is not strong enough. The corporate social responsibility provisions of the government are weak. It is being noticed. In fact, it is undermining Canada's credibility in the world.

This morning, when I was talking about the bill from the Senate, ironically, about corruption, I mentioned that it was absolutely critical that Parliament understand that we are falling behind. I referred to the 2011 report of Transparency International that showed that Canada is dead last when it comes to transparency and corruption. We need to move ahead.

The government is living in the past. It is living in the past, because it does not understand that when we are doing our work overseas, we should at least, at a minimum, follow the same laws we have here in Canada. That is not the case for the government. The government thinks we can live in the past such that when we go abroad, we can go by other rules.

There is a basic fairness principle here. When our corporations are doing their business abroad, they should at least follow the same rules we follow here. I know some will say that it is different when we go abroad. There is a different cultural understanding. I would submit that this is old thinking. That is the past. Sadly, the government is stuck in the past.

People now are saying that we have to be totally transparent about what our companies are doing abroad. Guess who is saying this? Just recently, the sherpa for the United Kingdom wanted to see what was happening here in Canada. At the G8, one of the priorities for Prime Minister Cameron is transparency.

Industry right now is saying that we should move forward in ensuring that the EITI is strengthened and that there is full transparency of Canadian businesses abroad. That is the mining sector. They are on board, and they are wondering why the government is not on board. When are we going to have Canadian companies, working on development projects or not, that are actually absolutely transparent? We are laggards on this, and the government knows it.

Why does it not embrace transparency, embrace what is called the sunshine bill we will be talking about later today. At times, we will hear the government talking about being innovative and looking to the future. However, the government is actually looking in the rear-view mirror.

We talked about the role of the private sector in committee and heard from witnesses. Our dissenting report was very clear. It said that economic growth is essential for sustainable poverty reduction but that all economic growth does not necessarily lead to poverty reduction.

Let me open that up a bit. Kofi Annan's report was clear. Investors invest and do business in particular regions. Unless there is investment in people on the ground—helping with training, helping with governance, helping create the conditions for sustainable economic activity—there will not be the growth we want to see.

We will see profits grow, but not per capita income or, most importantly, things like life expectancy and child mortality. If we simply look at the numbers and profits of certain companies or GDP growth, that will indicate economic activity and growth for some, but not necessarily sustainable and resilient growth. We took issue with that. We have to understand economic growth as being sustainable and focused on poverty reduction.

During the study, no CIDA officials testified about existing private sector or sustainable growth policies. Let us put this in context. We had a study. It was the government's idea. It was about the role of the private sector in development. We were quite surprised that no CIDA officials testified that the existing private sector or sustainable growth policies were working. Nor did the report, from the government side, refer to the policies on sustainability.

That is strange, because it is a guiding principle. Even the government's own mandate with CIDA is that we look at sustainable economic growth. Despite that, there was no evidence brought forward at committee to support CIDA's work with the private sector as being sustainable or not. If we are actually going to go down this path, we had better bring along the principles and values that are inherent within CIDA.

The other interesting aspect is Canada's international development. There is legislation that guides us, or that the government should be guided by, that looks foremost at poverty reduction. That is under the ODA Act. It is the legislation that this House passed, and it says that poverty reduction is to be the centrepiece for CIDA's work. If we do not understand that the private sector's role is to help with poverty reduction, if we do not bring forward witnesses to talk about that and if we do not have people within the department who are able to come forward and underline that argument, we have to question the government's understanding of the issue. That is why we had the dissenting report and why we said to go back to the key core principles of the ODA Act when looking at private sector development.

As I said, we have no problem with the private sector being involved in development, but we have to make sure that it is in line with the values, the principles and the law that Parliament passed.

I think there is a resistance when it comes to looking at innovation with regard to private sector involvement in development. It is interesting, because the government's rhetoric would suggest that it actually understands the situation, but when we look at its actions—and that is always what we have to look at when it comes to politicians—we have to understand that if we are going to work with the private sector on the ground, they need a number of things.

The first is help with things like governance. They also need to have help with training. They need help with education, obviously, and with infrastructure, absolutely. Over here on this side of the House, we are very big on the role of women. If we want to see economic change and sustainable change happen, we should focus on women as a starting point. That will actually help in changing people's economic circumstances and with sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, you have travelled quite a bit, and some of us have also seen the good work that is done when investments are made in small projects and small enterprises and small businesses and the investments are focused on women. My goodness, the leverage from that approach is tremendous, yet the government did not understand that. It was looking at big Canadian companies as the ones to invest in when it comes to the private sector and development. There is a lack of understanding and there is a sense of the government living in the past on this issue, and we took a different point of view.

We also said that most of the recommendations contained in the committee's report do not really reflect the evidence we heard in the study.

This was surprising for me. I have been here for a number of years, and usually the government brings forward issues that it wants to get in front of the committee. That is the situation all our committees find themselves in these days: all the studies are started by the government. That is a sad case indeed.

In this case we thought that the government was going to have all of its witnesses lined up so that they would support the government's intent. It was really interesting, because many of the witnesses called by the government either contradicted the government or did not bring their evidence forward in the recommendations.

Let me give the House some examples. Transparency International focused on how critical it is that the Canadian government adopt the transparency initiatives that we are going to see at the G8. That was not in here, and we do not see it from the government. The government is probably going to speak against the private member's bill from my colleague from the Liberal Party today. It will find a reason. The government will just say that it is against it.

That was actually evidence in the testimony that we heard from witnesses, and it is not in here. Most Canadians would ask why we would not want to have absolute transparency for Canadian private sector players when they are working on international development abroad. That is just straight up: why would we not want to do that? It is not in here, yet there was evidence from government witnesses to that effect.

Another one was what we heard from our friends in the United States. They were very clear that investing in the private sector of the host countries is what is important; it is not about supporting Canadian private sector companies in developing countries. Again, the government thought it was going to hear our friends from south of the border say how great the government's program is in supporting Canadian corporations in developing countries. No; Ms. Clinton has been very innovative on this issue and has got things going on changing things in the Unites States, and witnesses said they invest in people on the ground in the private sector in those countries and benefit them. After all, it is international development we are talking about, not corporate welfare.

The fact is that we had testimony from government witnesses that contradicted the wishes of the government, so the report from the government side actually leaves out the recommendations from their witnesses, including their friends south of the border and including transparency. Ours certainly included it.

What we were left with I found very strange. I guess there were some problems in issue management, which was a bit of a surprise. I thought it had nailed this issue down.

I think it is indicative of the government, because we often see that the government does not communicate with professionals in the public service. We have this so-called innovation in policy, the “innovation” of having NGOs working side by side with the private sector and supporting them, but when I asked where it came from, it was not from the department. No one in the country could come up with where this policy came from.

It came from the ideology of the government, I suspect, and that is what is problematic. If professionals work in a department, be it in the Department of Foreign Affairs or CIDA, the government should actually talk to them to find out what they think. Can we imagine that? These are people we pay and rely on, and Canadians would find it shocking that government would not engage with them for policy innovation.

We on this side think that is the role of the public service. Certainly in the case of CIDA, government should talk to them to find out what they think would be good ideas. Maybe then the government would not have this bizarre outcome of a report that does not reflect the evidence that was provided at committee. We certainly made sure that the dissenting report reflected and captured the witnesses' testimony.

On this side we believe absolutely that we should invest in the private sector and ensure that Canadian dollars are going to be invested in innovation. We should make sure the focus is on women and small businesses, that the private sector investment in development is done in a transparent way and that it is aligned with the goals in the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act that Parliament passed. The government did not do that, and that is why New Democrats put this into the dissenting report.

If people are on the ground right now in a country like the DRC—and I was just talking to a group of people setting off to go to east Congo—they will see one of the richest countries in the world, but it is the paradox of the plenty, because when people go there, they will see that the riches of that country are being used against the very people who live there.

Let me explain that. A war has been going on since the late 1990s. Five million people have been killed, and the resources there are being used to fuel the conflict. We need to strengthen corporate social responsibility to ensure, for example, that conflict minerals are not entering the supply chain and being used to fund the conflict there. Our government should do more to focus on transparency and not just say we should support Canadian companies abroad.

Let us support the companies that are actually trying to help the countries where they are located. Let us make sure we help women, let us make sure there is transparency, and let us get this right.

That is why New Democrats had a dissenting report and that is the difference between us and the government. It is living in the past; we want to embrace the future, and that is why we will change things if we are elected.

[Syria, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is not enough. I remind the government that it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs who said that it was not enough. He thought Canada could, and should, do more. I agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Over 8 million Syrians right now are in need of assistance. Over 1.5 million Syrians are fleeing to other countries, especially countries like Turkey, yet the Conservatives, despite promises to help Turkey, have not fulfilled their promise.

Why have the Conservatives forgotten Turkey and helping with the refugee crisis there?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government is having a real problem keeping up with current trends, and that is not new to anyone who has watched what has happened in the Senate. As a footnote to that, the member mentioned the irony of this bill coming from the Senate when it has had allegations of bribery and corruption. For the Conservatives to come here with a bill to deal with corruption, maybe they should have started at home. I do not mean in Canada; I mean in their party.

The member is talking about something that is very important. He is right that we will be debating later this afternoon the Cardin-Lugar elements of the Dodd-Frank's legislation in the United States, which has been challenging all of us to do more when it comes to transparency for, in the case, Canadian companies doing business abroad. No longer is it acceptable for any country to allow its companies to operate overseas and not abide by the same rules they abide by in their own country. It is very simple. It is called consistency and ethics.

I think every country in the G7 has stood behind it. It will be interesting to see what happens in the G8 meetings and whether Canada is going to embrace this or not. This afternoon we will find out what the point of view of the government is on this sunshine bill. To date, it sounds like it will be against it.

Industry wants to see this happen. Why is the government being a laggard on this?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in its 2001 report, which is not that long ago, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all G7 countries--I know that hurts the parliamentary secretary's image of his government, but there it is--with respect to international bribery. In fact, quoting from the report, there is little or no enforcement and there is a problem in terms of legislation.

We are glad that the government is finally getting on board with what everyone else has been doing; providing better legislation, but also enforcement. We can have all the rules in the world but if we do not enforce them, we are going to find ourselves having a bit of a problem, in terms of legitimacy.

Finally, I find it interesting. The government talks about dealing with these issues. When it comes to the Canada Revenue Agency, what does it do? It cuts capacity. It does the same with the RCMP. It defies credibility for the government to say that it is serious about these issues when it is cutting the enforcement side. It still is living in the past when it comes to consensus in improving our disclosure of Canadian companies doing all of their work abroad.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, May 24th, 2013]

It is black and white. As if anyone believes that. I hope Conservatives do not believe it themselves because it is such a simplistic analysis of the world that it really defies credibility.

It is kind of like someone saying, “This simple world you live in is based on only two things: you are for investment and you are for jobs, and that is it. There is nothing else.” The fact is if they are for jobs, they have to be for corporate social responsibility. If they are for investment, they have to have clear and transparent rules. That is where we come in.

That is our job, to provide the sound framework for business to do its work, here and overseas, and for investment to make sure that we are providing the clear rules that everyone can get behind, so there is fairness for investment. Investors do not like instability, and when the rules are changing on a regular basis, as we have seen with the government on temporary foreign workers, they do not like that. Right now, business is very angry with the government, because it went from opening everything up for temporary foreign workers to throwing all this red tape at it. I am sure the Conservatives are hearing from business in their ridings, because they have swung from one end to the other, seemingly for business, and it does not make sense.

When I look at the approach that the government is taking on this bill, it reminds me of someone trying to clean up a mess afterwards, and not looking at preventing a crisis. The fact is that everyone was aware of what was going on in places like Libya. We had Canadian companies doing business abroad in Burma; I remember one of the first files I dealt with when was I elected had to do with what was going on in Burma. We pushed hard for the government to bring in the special economic action rules against Burma. The government finally did, but it did not go back to deal with the present investment in Burma. Companies were still operating in Burma after the government brought in the special economic action measures. It is indicative of the government that it is constantly behind; it is like it is constantly living in the past and not dealing with the future.

In reading the actual bill, no one can argue that the people who are behind this are trying to plug loopholes by eliminating the exceptions previously available, and adding national jurisdiction, which will remove the uncertainty that business is concerned about.

I think we will hear about the offences at committee. We have to start with something, and we can look at that. There is a question that charities have about delivering humanitarian aid, and that is a question we will have to deal with at committee.

If we look at the approach that the government started off with, it was, “How do we deal with our reputation abroad? How do we deal with the fact that there are these loopholes?” That was a fair place to start. I do agree with the parliamentary secretary on the need to give the RCMP the tools they need to enforce legislation. That was not the case before, and I see some positive movement with that.

However, we also have to look at the other side. If we only do this and do not do anything else, have we actually dealt with the core issue? The core issue, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is about transparency and looking to the future, not living in the past.

This bill simply recognizes something that has been around for far too long, but the government will not have actually brought us into the present-day environment of business and international relations unless it goes further, embracing full transparency and, when we go to the G8, ensuring that we get behind the initiatives of full transparency in the extractive industries. If we do not do that, we will continue to live in the past.

The NDP will push for future legislation that will actually make this something seen as a minimum, and for us to actually get on, like the rest of the world has, with full disclosure, full sunlight as my colleague from the Liberal Party has suggested, and see that Canada can be proud of its record on the international stage. That will be good for Canadians, it will be good for investment and will be good all around.