Paul Dewar

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has done more than its share in Afghanistan. The government went too far when it extended the military mission without a vote in Parliament. Canada will have more soldiers in Afghanistan than 35 countries, including Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and so on.

Why do the Conservatives still want to do more for a war that is going nowhere?

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newfoundland for his insight and his work on this file.

I also want to ask him a question about the stealth, but I suppose this is about the stealth of the motion today as opposed to the other stealth that has gone on in this place and the agreement to go ahead with the extension of the mission in Afghanistan.

We now find out there was a deal between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives to extend the mission in Afghanistan and to spend $1.5 billion extra dollar on a military mission. Could he enlighten us as to why the Liberals did not want to come forward today on a motion about the extension of the mission? We could have had a debate about all of these facets, including the stealth fighter, and about the mission in Afghanistan, the extension of a military mission and a vote.

[Afghanistan, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, among all the broken promises this week, the most devastating for Afghans was the Conservatives' cutting of development commitments to the people of Kandahar. We promised to build 50 schools, but only 19 have been built. We promised to train 3,000 teachers, but we have not even reached half that target. We committed to be partners in Afghan reconciliation, but the government has no progress to show there.

Can the Conservatives explain why they broke their word to the people of Canada, and most importantly, why they broke their word to the people of Afghanistan?

[Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what the government is doing here in playing with nomenclature and, as my friend said, trying to propagandize legislation, we see today that it is trying to undo something that was proposed by opposition and the majority of the House.

In light of the fact that the government saw this go through committee without the content or purpose of the bill being changed but to actually have some truth in advertising to ensure the nomenclature of the bill actually reflects the contents, I wonder if the member knows if there were any consultations at all with opposition members as to their proposition.

I say that because the government is clearly playing games if it did not come forward and say that it understands there are problems with the naming of the bill, that it sees the amendment and that the majority of the House does not approve of the nomenclature of the bill, so let us talk so we can find an alternative or compromise here.

Did the government actually came forward and say that it would like to talk to see if we could come to a meeting of the minds before it brought forward what was in front of us before?

[Foreign Affairs, November 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, specifically the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have repeatedly said that Omar Khadr was America's problem, that no talks were under way and that this had nothing to do with them. We now find out that on October 23, the government had in fact been in talks and had in fact considered a request by the U.S. to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. The diplomatic notes are clear.

Why did the minister deny that this was the case? Why did he mislead Canadians? Why is he hiding from the truth? He should embrace the truth. It might even set him free.

[Public Works and Government Services, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, she also had a lot to say about conflict of interest.

Both Mr. Tipple and Mr. Rotor blew the whistle about the apparent conflict of interest between Minister Fortier and the bidders for an over $1 billion contract. The minister directed millions of dollars of business to two Conservative friends. He was called on it. He fired these public servants as a result of it.

The evidence is piling up. When will the government conduct a forensic audit on this file?

[Public Works and Government Services, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006 the government fired two public servants. When asked about it, it ran for cover and misled the media. We were told “there is nothing to see here”. Now we learn the government is paying out over $2 million for the wrongful dismissal of Mr. Rotor and Mr. Tipple.

If there was nothing wrong, why the need for the payout? Why were these public servants set up? Who will be held accountable?

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak once again to Bill C-300 and to lay out some of my concerns with respect to this legislation. I note that the Minister of Labour also put down markers on her concerns.

It is important for people to understand that Bill C-300 would do no more and no less than provide fair play for Canadian companies functioning abroad. It would not undermine the opportunities for mining companies abroad. Witnesses at committee have told us time and again that this was exactly the way to go to ensure that not only Canadian companies have opportunities abroad but that Canadians in general can be proud of the business those companies are doing abroad.

More than a majority of Canadian companies already employ the criteria set out in this legislation. Representatives from Canadian companies told us at committee that they were already onboard with these practices.

If the equator principles on corporate social responsibility, which are well known around the world, are being practised by Canadian companies and are already in play with the EDC, why is there opposition to this fairly straightforward proposition? I believe some of it has to do with misinformation but perhaps some people do not want the government to oversee regulation in the game.

It is important to understand how we arrived here. My predecessor for Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent, went through a process to ensure that all voices would be heard on this important file and pushed for the round table on extractive industries, a process, by the way, that has not been repeated but should be.

Members on that round table heard from industry and civil society and they came up with recommendations that were agreed to by both sides. One of the recommendations was that an independent ombudsperson would be appointed by government to oversee Canadian extractive mining industries abroad. The ombudsperson would have the ability to investigate and oversee mining operations and, if need be, to not only follow the criteria that I mentioned in terms of the equator principles, but to ensure that if there were any concerns some sort of remedy would be available. For example, if we had a Canadian mining company that was abusing environmental or human rights standards, the ombudsman would be able to do something. That was agreed to.

The sad part of this is that the government took more than a year and a half to respond to the recommendations. It came up with a counsellor but her hands are tied should any complaint come forward. She can only investigate a complaint if both parties agree to an investigation and, of course we know what that means. If one party decides it does not want an investigation to go forward then it will not.

If members look at Bill C-300, they will see that it supports the round table. Many people are concerned that there will not be sufficient time for companies to respond. I will go over the amendments that we will be voting on tomorrow.

We will ensure that vexatious or frivolous complaints will be tossed out. A company will have time to put its concerns forward and there will be a lengthy time period for the investigation. If there is cause for concern under the equator principles and other principles agreed to by the company, then the company, by way of engagement with the minister, as it is written in the bill, would have time to respond to ensure there is no wrongdoing.

Having those safety valves, throwing out frivolous vexatious claims, making sure that there is a thorough investigation, making sure that Canadian companies have an opportunity to respond is fair play. That is what we will be voting on tomorrow night. The question is, do we want to raise the standard of Canadian companies, yes or no?

I should also note that a recent report by the industry itself has pointed to the problem. The mining companies are the ones who commissioned the report. It says that Canada, among countries like Australia, India, U.K., South Africa, the U.S. and Indonesia, has the most claims against the industry. We are by far the leader in terms of claims of incidents that have been filed.

That says that the industry itself, having commissioned this report and having the data, understands the importance of dealing with corporate social responsibility. The report lays out the type of infractions by Canadian companies. It clearly underlines the need for action.

The mining companies say that they wish the government had come forward with the ombudsperson, with independence and having more ambit around investigation and remedy.

What is important to note in this report is what is said in terms of CSR as an idea. The report says very clearly that mining and exploration firms operating in Canada thrive while working under arguably more rigorous CSR and regulation paradigms when compared to other sister operations in the developing world. The success of mining companies in Canada happens even as companies are faced with a divergent cultural context while working alongside indigenous communities that are often marginalized.

Our companies can do this. They are up to the job. Our job is to make sure we support them by having a level playing field. That is exactly what Bill C-300 would do.

Those who say it would inhibit investment obviously have not read the bill and considered the amendments. The Export Development Corporation supports Canadian industries abroad. It is very active abroad and it is not true to say that it would not be able to do its work if Bill C-300 is passed. In the past it has involved itself with the voluntary principles and the equator principles. It is the one that is saying it is involved in this.

We need to say to EDC that not only should it have this in its own portfolio, but Parliament and government have a role to make sure it regulates. Why? EDC is a crown corporation. It is not up to someone else to regulate it. It is our job here.

If Canadian companies are not able to follow the principles that other Canadian companies are following and after the rigorous oversight that I mentioned they are found to be in violation, then EDC would not be able to support them. No companies have an absolute right to EDC money. It is something that companies have to apply for and standards need to be enforced. That is exactly what Bill C-300 would do.

That is why we will be supporting the bill, as amended, tomorrow night.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would point to the fact that it was the U.S. Congress that stopped the trade deal with Colombia and, as the member would know as well, it was not just with the present government but with the previous government. The reason was clear: the congress was not going to be entering into a free trade agreement with, as he noted, Panama, but also with Colombia because of the concerns about what was happening on the ground in Colombia.

What we need to see, before we enter into trade deals, is that there is fair play in daylight with the countries that we are going to be entering into these deals with, before, not after. This is where the American Congress has taken a strong stand. It is seen, in the case of Colombia, that there was not fair play in daylight on things like labour rights, human rights and the environment. I think that is the same reason why the U.S. stopped its negotiations with Panama.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague from British Columbia is actually pinpointing is the problem with these agreements. Like the softwood lumber sellout, as some of my colleagues call it, the agreement looks good on paper to those who are negotiating it but when it comes down to individual communities and industries, we have not seen the benefit. We have seen the opposite of that.

Let us remember what happened. We had $1 billion go south to guarantee that we would have fair trade and access to markets. Now we see, in ridings right across the country, the shutdown of an industry. The irony, actually the tragedy, is that we were investing this money so that we could have access and it has had the opposite effect.

What we need to see in these agreements is not just nice side agreements on labour and the environment that, frankly, are not very effective. We need to see, just like we are taking about with potash, where the net benefit is for Canada in these trade agreements, not in theory but in actual real terms.

I am sure that at committee we will be asking to see the statistics on Panama that we will be able to take to the bank and take to our communities to ensure we are not being opened up just for some people to take what they want and leave the rest, because that is what we have seen here. We have seen our country opened up, people taking what they want and leaving most of our workers with the short end of the stick.