FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, we're going to begin.

We have a quorum for hearing witnesses. We're going to hear these witnesses—and these are the last witnesses we'll hear on Bill C-31—and go to clause-by-clause at 10 a.m.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Gillespie, Madam Grover-LeBlanc, Mr. Siegel, and Mr. Ross to the committee.

Mr. Gillespie, it's nice to see you again. I'm sure you're not unhappy as the president of this corporation to see this process winding its way to the close. Maybe, as Churchill said, “This may not be the end, but maybe it's the beginning of the beginning of the end”, or something like that. You are welcome. We'd like to hear a short introduction, if you have one; then we'll open for questions. Thank you for coming.

[Translation]

Mr. A. Ian Gillespie (President and Chief Executive Officer, Export Development Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable members of the committee,

[English]

we welcome the opportunity to return to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

As the chairman has already introduced my colleagues beside me, I won't go through that again. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my prepared statement has actually been circulated by the clerk, so I won't repeat that.

Let me begin, if I might, by providing some further clarification to committee members regarding some concerns that have been raised before this committee over recent days. Then, if time permits, I will briefly highlight a few of the key points from my prepared statement.

The first is with regard to the question of EDC's compliance with international obligations. Let me assure you that EDC complies with all of Canada's international obligations and fully conforms to all directives and guidance received from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

• 0910

EDC has further strengthened its channel of communication with DFAIT to remain at all times up to date with Canada's foreign policy and undertakings with regard to international obligations. Let me repeat that EDC accepts the principles of Canada's international obligations and fully respects them.

Making this a legal requirement, however, as some members have suggested, would create substantial additional litigation risks for EDC and Canadian exporters and their customers abroad, introducing uncertainty and ultimately increasing the cost to the exporter and the amount of business lost through our inability to conclude transactions on a timely basis. Moreover, as the minister informed this committee yesterday, you can't legislate guidelines that don't have a legal framework themselves.

The second concern is on the question of accountability. It has been suggested in front of this committee that EDC is accountable only to its board of directors. This is not correct. EDC is fully accountable to the public. For example, EDC's new disclosure policy, developed through extensive consultations with the public, is one of the most comprehensive of any export credit agency in the world. I think some of you may have also seen our website, which contains a substantial amount of information. But the disclosure policy, while extremely significant in and of itself, is only a small part of more extensive public accountability that has existed for a long time.

EDC is equally fully accountable to the Government of Canada. Just in the area of environmental compliance, for example, the government has already provided EDC with policy guidance on its expectations for the design and content of EDC's environmental review directive.

Bill C-31 itself also specifically mandates a permanent role for the Auditor General in auditing the design and implementation of that directive as it continues to evolve. As a crown corporation, EDC has a comprehensive governance regime, which I have barely elaborated, and I would welcome questions in that regard.

A third concern involves the issue of EDC's benefits to Canada. It should be noted that the financial and risk mitigation support provided by EDC's trade finance services brings benefits to Canada. This is the mandate of EDC, our raison d'être ever since 1944. As reported last year in our annual report, we helped more than 6,000 Canadian companies, sustaining 480,000 jobs. That represents some 4% of Canada's GDP.

Consideration of benefits to Canada is integral to our planning and a sine qua non for support. But we do not, once again, endorse making this a legal requirement. Making it a legal requirement unnecessarily exposes the corporation to substantial litigation risks, which would be costly and time consuming for the customers we serve.

In an intensively competitive and a substantially more challenging global economic environment—because of recent tragic events—now is not the time to introduce additional uncertainty, cost, and delay. The interests of Canadian exporters and foreign investors are paramount, and they must have a reliable financial partner.

Returning to the larger review process, which we are in the midst of concluding after more than three and a half years,

[Translation]

your committee tabled a detailed report entitled "Exporting in the Canadian Interest". The report presents the EDC as a Canadian success story that has made a significant contribution to sales, to exports and to the prosperity of our country.

[English]

While we of EDC were gratified by these acknowledgements, we also listened very carefully to the recommendations you presented to the government, recommendations that would enable EDC to fulfill its vital trade mandate and do so in a way that is consistent with Canadian interests and policies: “striking the right balance”, if you will.

[Translation]

Not only did we listen, we also took immediate action. Today, I would like to inform you about some of the steps we took.

[English]

EDC created one the most comprehensive disclosure policies of any export credit agency, as mentioned. Public disclosure—public consultation—is now the foundation for changing EDC policy.

• 0915

We have also established an advisory council on best practices in all aspects of corporate social responsibility. EDC prepares Canada's future through our education and youth employment strategy, all aimed at building a stronger export culture for Canada's future. I know Mary Grover-LeBlanc would be delighted to share some of that strategy with you, if time permits.

EDC has also taken a leadership role in OECD negotiations with regard to environmental practices internationally. This is critical so that Canadians may compete on a level playing field. We established an environmental review framework back in 1998-99 and have recently held public consultations across Canada with the help of Stratos, all aimed to strengthen that framework.

We've recently appointed an internationally recognized chief environmental adviser to join nine others in a large, professional group of engineers and environmental experts—the largest of any export credit agency in the world. We have appointed a compliance officer in response to the recommendations and have separately appointed a senior corporate social responsibility adviser to better dialogue with the NGO community. And we launched an environmental exporters' initiative in the year 2000.

[Translation]

As I said earlier, these are just some of the significant, progressive changes made in the last two years. You will find more details in the documentation we distributed.

[English]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to say that EDC's mandate is more critical than ever. Canadian companies face not only an economic slowdown but also the intensifying political risks resulting from the aftermath of the tragic events in the United States. We are committed to providing the financial services that keep trade alive and sustain jobs at home. At this time of significant uncertainty, EDC's risk management services are an essential tool available for companies of all sizes, especially small business.

[Translation]

Our board of directors, the officers who are here before you and our employees all believe very much in our mandate.

[English]

This review process confirmed the soundness of EDC's strategic direction and noted the importance of maintaining private sector methods to strengthen corporate social responsibility practices. I believe the right balance is being found. Not only will EDC continue to be publicly accountable, but it will continue to grow in strength and relevance.

[Translation]

In closing, allow me to express my gratitude to your committee for its participation in this process. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gillespie.

[English]

Were any of the other officials with you going to speak to the matter?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: We would be delighted to answer any questions of the committee.

The Chair: Great. Well, again, welcome, and thank you for coming.

Colleagues, do you have questions of Mr. Gillespie?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, is that the only presentation we will be getting from all these individuals?

The Chair: Yes, that is correct. They are all EDC officials. So they're here to answer questions and not necessarily to make a statement.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: They're all from the department. I apologize. I thought there were others as well.

The Chair: I will give you some time, and if I may, I will begin with the other side. I will come back to you later.

[English]

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I note with some regret that—well, I see some other parties coming in—some of those with some of the more serious questions in the hearings are not here right now. I hope they'll come and hear all of the evidence the committee wants to have on this bill. I appreciate very much Mr. Gillespie and his colleagues being here to address this important legislation.

Mr. Gillespie, with one degree or other of hyperbole, we've heard really three concerns, I think, aired at the committee about perceived weaknesses of this legislation. They revolve around the environment, human rights, and a need for greater transparency.

There have been examples cited of other countries that do things in a much better way, and yet the only two examples I've heard cited are Australia and then latterly—just yesterday—the United States.

• 0920

I asked an earlier series of witnesses to table any other examples. Mr. Chairman, I have not received any information from those witnesses. I'm assuming the clerk hasn't either.

I wonder if you could address those three specific so-called weaknesses in the bill, Mr. Gillespie, and also the practice in other countries. It's the government's view this puts the EDC and Canada at the top, at the front of the line, if you will, in terms of export development types of agencies. I've heard some comments from the other side that have questioned the accuracy of that statement, but there's very little evidence to suggest otherwise. I wonder if you could address those concerns for the record.

Mr. Ian Gillespie: Thank you very much indeed for the question. I'm delighted to. I'll also call on my colleagues to supplement my answer with regard to issues such as the environment and human rights questions in a moment.

I think you're absolutely correct that EDC is one of the leading export credit agencies in the world today. We have taken a leadership role within the OECD with regard to such practices as developing the environmental guidelines for all export credit agencies, and I think we've really helped to bring a number of other countries to deal with the issues very seriously and soundly, to the benefit of everyone.

Ex-Im Bank often comes up as an example of a leader in practice, and they are in many areas. But I think it is also very important to understand that Ex-Im Bank is a lender of last resort. EDC does not operate as an ECA in that mode. Ex-Im Bank is a highly politicized lender-of-last-resort organization that also receives an annual appropriation of approximately $1.2 billion Canadian to support—

The Chair: How much?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: That's $1.2 billion—$800 million U.S.—to support their activities on an annual basis, activities that represented approximately $13 billion of business.

EDC last year supported $45 billion of business on behalf of 6,000 or more Canadian exporters, 90% of whom are small and medium-sized enterprises. We've done that on the basis of the original paid-in capital of EDC of approximately $1 billion.

So it's very important to understand the different roles the export credit agencies play in the world.

To turn to the specific issues of human rights, and more particularly some of the actions we've taken on the environment, I'll ask Mary Grover-LeBlanc to speak to human rights, and then Eric Siegel to speak to some of the developments across the issue of the environment.

Ms. Mary Grover-LeBlanc (Vice-President, Corporate Representation, Export Development Corporation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On human rights, I would like to speak a bit around the fact that we do take guidance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on foreign policy and human rights issues. From that, though, we have worked extensively with different stakeholders on looking at what we should do as far as implementing within the corporation our due diligence and risk assessment on these issues.

As Mr. Gillespie mentioned, we do have an adviser on corporate social responsibility who engages and liaises with NGOs on a regular basis on these issues, and we do technical briefings on issues they might have around human rights. But within our environmental review framework, we do have a requirement for project sponsors to provide social impact analyses and plans, looking at the relocation of indigenous people and other issues around social impact.

In addition to that we have a political risk analyst group that does an extensive amount of work looking at political risk and social aspects, human rights, and political unsettlement. We take that information to do our assessment amongst all the risk assessments we do, whether they be financial, social, or environmental.

These are issues that will be looked at also by our advisory council on corporate social responsibility. Yesterday, through a news release, we announced this advisory council, which will bring together NGOs, eminent leaders in business, and academia. These are issues we look at strengthening in our process. But certainly, the guidance is taken from the federal government on these issues.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

Mr. Eric Siegel (Executive Vice-President, Medium and Long-term Financial Services, Export Development Corporation): Thank you.

• 0925

If I can add to the comments Mr. Gillespie and Ms. Grover-LeBlanc have made about our environmental framework, as Mr. Gillespie said, the framework was recently introduced in 1999. At that time, the Auditor General recognized that very few export credit agencies had an environmental review framework. EDC was taking a leadership role internationally in introducing such a framework and has continued to be recognized as a leader in that.

In fact, the Auditor General indicated we are a leader and we can continue to be leader. They found the framework we adopted actually incorporates most of the elements of a suitably designed framework. They pointed out a couple of areas where the framework would have to continue to evolve in order to continue to be considered a leadership framework amongst not just export credit agencies but international finance institutions in general.

Specifically, they highlighted the need for more policies with respect to transparency, and within that, specifically consultation and disclosure of information. As the members know, EDC introduced a disclosure policy effective October 1, which was developed after extensive consultation with NGOs, academics, and the business community. That responds directly to the recommendations of the Auditor General.

In addition, EDC has been working with the Government of Canada, a leader in negotiating and insisting on common guidelines among other export credit agencies, and there is now a draft agreement introducing common guidelines that has effectively raised the overall bar among world institutions. It's the fact that EDC had a framework and was seen to be applying it in a very responsive manner that gave us and Canada the credibility to bring other export credit agencies along—that agreement, the signing of which is imminent. So there again is a positive development.

Finally, I think the point Mr. Gillespie was making is that EDC is clearly the most active export credit agency out there, far more active than U.S. Ex-Im Bank, and dramatically more active than EFIC in Australia.

We are known in the community as being a very responsive institution that has a very clear environmental set of policies and practices but at the same time is able to engage in commercially responsive and flexible manners. We are sought after for participation, as opposed to, in the case of U.S. Ex-Im Bank, being the lender or the insurer of last resort, the last place you want to go, because of practices that are at times very slow, very bureaucratic, very cumbersome, and very unresponsive from a commercial perspective.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll go next to Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gillespie.

If you were not present, I'm sure you have received some information about some of the presentations we have heard from other interested parties. A number asked that the EDC be required by law to take into account issues such as environmental impacts, human rights, and so on. Others said no to that, because it could complicate the process for evaluating applications to the EDC for certain international projects. Others replied that all that was required was a privative clause. The fact that there are legal protections against abusive or frivolous proceedings is not enough.

In the context of current rights, if we were to create a statutory obligation in the act requiring the EDC to take into account the environmental impact, human rights, and so on, which seems to be part of your policy already... If, for example, the act included EDC's existing policy, but also contained a privative clause whereby the EDC would not be subject to any proceedings, would that prevent the EDC from being competitive internationally? If your policy were to be included in the legislation, the only way your status internationally could change would be if you did not have the protection of a privative clause. If you had that, your argument would not stand up under normal circumstances. Am I correct on this?

• 0930

[English]

Mr. Ian Gillespie: There's actually no question that there are differences of view as between the NGO community and the business community. The NGO community, in many regards, while they think we've gone a long way, obviously are not completely satisfied. At the same time, the business community, I think as recently as yesterday afternoon, expressed some serious reservations in terms of their ability to do business internationally. Obviously, competitiveness is a very key part of that. It's the issue of uncertainty, the issue of cost, and the issue of delay.

We feel that we've found the right balance. Obviously we are pleased to bring statutory weight to the environment within the legislation in the way it's being handled.

With regard to the issue of the privative clause—and I'll perhaps ask Mr. Ross to expand on this shortly—there is no question as well that the U.S. Ex-Im Bank has such a clause. This is, however, ultimately a matter for the government to decide. But if you would like further amplification on what a privative clause would do for us, we'd be pleased to provide that.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Before Mr. Ross begins, I would like to continue a little further.

You say you have the most comprehensive disclosure policy of all export credit organizations in the world. From what you say, it appears that this disclosure policy does not cause any problems or delays. It has not had a negative impact. If the government were to make this policy mandatory by including it in the legislation, together with a privative clause, would that cause you any problems? Your objection seems to focus on the following point: that if the government ever considered making the policy mandatory, this could create problems for you.

[English]

Mr. Ian Gillespie: Perhaps I misunderstood the member's question, but the disclosure policy has recently been introduced, so this is still very early days. A number of exporters are concerned even about that level of disclosure. We feel that this is the right thing to do.

With regard to the environmental review framework, which is different, that is where we do take into consideration the social impacts of those projects—and Mr. Siegel could perhaps expand on that. But the issue of the privative clause itself, which may well, or could, perhaps, give further protection to Canadian exporters, is really a matter for the government to decide.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Ross (Senior Vice-President, Legal Services and Secretariat, Export Development Corporation): Mr. Chairman, the bill already provide that the Corporation will be required to assess the environmental effects according to the criteria established by the board of the Corporation. The criteria will be based on the existing criteria but they will be improved on the basis of our consultations. A privative clause would certainly convey a message that the courts would not tolerate abusive or frivolous proceedings. Moreover, the courts also have other ways of controlling abusive proceedings.

• 0935

Consequently, a privative clause could discourage a party from initiating proceedings that could subsequently be considered abusive. However, if abusive proceedings are begun and taken before the courts, they will truly be dismissed. The fact that they must be debated can of course cause delays. That could perhaps discourage foreign clients from dealing with the Corporation, but in itself, this is not a way of avoiding frivolous proceedings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm just trying to understand. You say that a privative clause could be a deterrent, but, regardless of whether or not there is a privative clause, there are other steps certain interested parties could take in order to launch an abusive proceeding. Is that correct?

Mr. Gilles Ross: There are mechanisms in place whereby the courts can reject abusive and frivolous proceedings. Obviously, in such cases, the proceedings have already been started.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but I'm trying to understand those who say that making the existing disclosure policy mandatory under the act even though this policy is new to the EDC, could cause problems and make the EDC uncompetitive internationally.

That is what some company representatives told us. However, they said that if the government is interested in proceeding, a privative clause would go a long way toward preventing this potential negative impact.

So I'm asking whether these people are right. You seem to be saying that they are not.

Mr. Gilles Ross: They are right, Ms. Jennings, in that a privative clause conveys a very powerful message that the courts will be careful to dismiss any frivolous or abusive proceedings. So in that way it is a very strong signal.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony this morning.

I would like to come back to a more general matter. The Auditor General's special report tabled in May 2000 highlighted a number of weaknesses in the area of public consultations and disclosure, among others. There were significant gaps between the design and operation of the review framework. The report said that the objectives of the review framework were not clear, that the environmental standards of the review framework were not specific enough, that there were gaps at each stage of the environmental review process, that the screening tools were not applied adequately to identify potential environmental risk, and that there was not methodology to determine if adverse environmental risks could be justified. Those were some of the conclusions reached by the Auditor General. Can you tell us how Bill C-31 responds to each of these criticisms made by the Auditor General?

[English]

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I will ask Mr. Siegel to respond more fully in a moment, but the way Bill C-31 responds is to give statutory weight to the environmental review framework.

• 0940

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have carried out consultations across Canada with Stratos, one of the leading practitioners of environmental practices, to ensure we can strengthen the environmental review framework we already have. As Mr. Siegel mentioned, it contained most of the elements of an appropriate environmental review framework.

The consultations have been carried out. There were 300 invitations extended to participants. I understand we had about 60 parties that chose to respond. The report of Stratos will be made public shortly. Through this process, we will be further strengthening the environmental review framework that has already existed for a number of years.

As well, the bill does provide for the Auditor General to actually review the directive and the environmental review processes we have every five years. As you're aware, I think the minister has also asked that it be done for the first time within two years. Perhaps Mr. Siegel could further elaborate.

Mr. Eric Siegel: Thank you.

As I stated before, when EDC introduced its framework, we were really one of a very few export credit agencies with such a framework. The Auditor General recognized that. They recognized this was also a burgeoning field. It is not one for which there are clear processes and methodologies. This is something that is evolving over time.

I think it's important to note that not only did the Auditor General endorse EDC's framework as being responsive to most of the elements, but they identified some areas where it could be improved. EDC has agreed with the Auditor General and has responded positively.

I think it's also important for the honourable member to recognize that the Auditor General made no comment on the actual projects in question or whether the projects represented unacceptable environmental risks. In fact, they were only looking at the application of the process itself.

In its comments to the Auditor General's findings, EDC indicated we were fully satisfied all of the projects supported met EDC's overall framework and represented acceptable projects from an environmental perspective. Indeed half of the projects the Auditor General looked at were designed to World Bank standards or were in North America and therefore had to meet U.S. or Canadian standards. We were quite comfortable with the projects.

At the same time, we agreed with the Auditor General. He was looking at projects that were being applied under our framework from the very inception of the framework. The Auditor General recognized it is one where you do not get there overnight. You have to develop strong processes, train your people, and develop tools and techniques in order to enhance one's capability to do environmental review.

EDC has been doing so all along. Indeed the Auditor General made reference to an internal audit we did with our own staff to understand where the gaps were in understanding the application of the framework and a training program we introduced in the fall of last year responding to the need for additional training. We have also made additional system investments within EDC to positively address some of the Auditor General's findings.

Finally, Mr. Gillespie indicated that under this legislation the Auditor General will be auditing EDC within two years. The minister would like to see the Auditor General come back and again examine the suitability and application of the framework. We welcome it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have a question for Ms. Grover-Leblanc. We asked the following question of an earlier group of witnesses: to your knowledge, have any projects been turned down by the Export Development Corporation on the basis of human rights violations?

Ms. Mary Grover-LeBlanc: Indeed, the Auditor General's report mentioned that projects had been turned down. As I said earlier, we take into account the entire analysis that we conduct. We don't conduct an analysis solely on financial risk; we analyze environmental impact as well as social impact. If we found a situation where a project did not live up to our reputation and we felt that we could not live with such a project, we could indeed decline to participate. But we always try to see how we could participate in a given project which will go ahead in any event and we try to see how we could reduce environmental and social impact. So if it is a project with a multinational sponsor which will be carried out by other countries if we do get involved, we can still participate in the project on the condition that certain changes will be made to reduce social and environmental impacts.

• 0945

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I simply mean that at that point, if it does go ahead, I fail to see how we could be against putting this in legislation just as we did for the environment. So I am a bit surprised that we still don't see any reference to the corporation's obligation to examine the social and human impact of projects that it might be called upon to support.

The Chair: I believe that that is an argument that has to do with...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Among other things, we still want to set the table.

The Chair: We can't ask Ms. Leblanc, although you want her to agree with your position, don't you...

I am just examining your projects and I have noted the direction you are going in. You are doing fine, Mr. Paquette. That is fine.

Ms. Mary Grover-LeBlanc: I'd also like to comment on that aspect, with your permission.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Mary Grover-LeBlanc: With regard to the environmental aspect, I simply want to indicate that the legislation does contain a directive that alludes to social impact. So as I indicated earlier, when we request a environmental impact assessment, that includes a social impact. The majority of engineers in our company examine the environmental impacts worldwide, and that is accompanied by a service that examines political and social impacts. But we work closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to ensure that we are aware of our international human rights obligations.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Augustine.

[English]

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me none of the witnesses who came before us were opposed to, or had any demands for, not having EDC or something similar to EDC.

The lines seem to be drawn around two perspectives. There are the business concerns of competitiveness, cost, and delay, and, on the other hand, concern by NGOs on the social impact of the projects.

How do we bring the two together? How do we have one side understand the perspective of the other? It seems to be the debate, even when business and NGOs are on the same panel.

I was very pleased to hear you mention that you have a social responsibility adviser who will be working to have both groups understand the position of each other. Could you speak more on when the adviser came on board? How does it work? How do you see the work progressing?

It seems NGOs are not saying they don't want EDC and the work that is happening. They realize in a responsible way, as Canadians and Canadian businesses, we need the expertise, the work, and whatever EDC is doing. But it's the social concerns around the project, the impact of this, and wanting the aim of Canadians outside of our shores to be almost the same as we would expect in Canada. So we need to bring those two perspectives a little closer together.

• 0950

I know we will never converge or reach the point where NGOs agree with businesses 100% in terms of what they're doing, or vice versa, but I think we can come a little bit closer to understanding what is happening. They see the amendments to this bill as a way to ensure that, in the social impacts and the concerns they have and the responsibility we have as Canadians doing business offshore, we take those same social responsibilities in that arena.

So could you talk about the role of the advisory committee or the social responsibility adviser and how you see the channels being a bit narrow between those two viewpoints?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I will begin, and then I will ask Madame Grover-LeBlanc to speak to the NGO adviser position, and as well, Eric Siegel with regard to the whole environmental review framework, because I think you need to look at not only that position, but the whole positioning of EDC in the context of what you're talking about, where we have and the government is giving statutory weight to the environment. Within that enhanced environmental review framework, which we are building now with the help of Stratos and the extensive cross-Canada consultations we've had, we are going to be incorporating more clearly the issue of social impacts into the review of projects—and Mr. Siegel can speak to that.

But we also have put in place the NGO adviser position for corporate social responsibility and the advisory council, drawn, as Madame Grover-LeBlanc said, from business academia and the civil society groups, the NGO community. We have strengthened further our technical and environmental assessment structure within EDC to ensure that the projects get the right view, and we have the political risk assessment department that also looks at the issue of social impacts. We have the guidance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and we have the compliance officer position to ensure that our policies are being adhered to.

There are a number of different dimensions that very clearly feed into exactly what you're talking about, so that nothing is missed with regard to these kinds of issues. We have ultimately the disclosure policy that I elaborated on at length, to ensure that there is full transparency and accountability of EDC.

I would ask Madame Grover-LeBlanc to speak more specifically to the question of the NGO adviser position.

Ms. Mary Grover-LeBlanc: The NGO adviser position came out of the way we would look at actually engaging stakeholders on a proactive basis around some of these issues. You may see also on the website some of the material we've provided, tabled with the committee. There is an extensive array of activities and initiatives around corporate social responsibility that shows EDC's commitment to ensuring that we strengthen our practices in socially responsible, environmental, ethical, and human rights practices.

The NGO corporate social responsibility adviser basically has a very key role in liaising on a day-to-day basis with NGOs. In fact, the NGOs that came forward in front of this committee are members that we engage on a regular basis, who we speak to not only on issues, practices, and policies, but we even provide technical briefings on projects that they may have a concern about. So we have proactively gone out and set up information sessions with them.

Recently, because human rights was an issue that came up outside of the environmental issues, we did a session where we invited 40 NGOs focused on human rights issues to come together. We did a briefing session with our chief engineer and some of our engineers on some of the projects they're most interested in, and also the head of our political risk division, where we would present the work we do on our risk assessment around human rights issues and political risk assessment. This was a session we did for about three hours, going through the due diligence. We gave them very thorough examples of what we look at in our assessments. We're very open and transparent in the way we do this.

• 0955

I think we've shown a great deal of good, proactive initiative in trying to engage the NGOs. There were also representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, because it was key to know that we take guidance from the department on these issues.

As part of the stakeholder engagement strategy, this adviser started recently, about a month and a half ago, working with me and the president, with the Advisory Council on Corporate Social Responsibility. This is a council where we will seek guidance from these eminent individuals in different fields around issues such as anti-corruption, human rights, and the environment. They will come together a couple of times a year to provide us with this advice, and we view it as something that will demonstrate that we are engaged on these issues and are looking at strengthening them.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Siegel, were you going to add something to that?

Mr. Eric Siegel: I would just add that in respect of the environmental review framework itself, which we are actually in the process of redesigning to respond to some of the findings of the Auditor General and indeed the guidance the government has provided us, as well as the activities that are taking place on the international level with the OECD agreement I referred to, I think it is important to stress that we have run a cross-country consultation. We went out to over 300 NGOs, academics, business associations, and businesses in general to invite their participation. Over 70 institutions participated. That's almost a 25% participation rate, which is very high.

We got very strong feedback that the scope of the consultation and the issues that were being addressed were the ones that should be addressed. Therefore, the consultation was very comprehensive and responsive.

Clearly, there is not agreement on all points, and there are some for which there's a fair distance between what the NGOs and what business would like to see. There are others for which there is not, and indeed, there's a lot of agreement that the environmental review framework should be adjusted to focus more clearly on those projects that warrant deeper analysis because they present more potential for significant adverse environmental risk, and not to focus on every project in a “one brush fits all” type of approach.

There is also a fair amount of agreement on the need to introduce exceptions and thresholds so that, again, one is focusing one's effort where it is truly warranted and not, in effect, wasting energy in areas where one can quickly determine that the project does not present environmental risks, or the risks can be mitigated in a very logical and reliable manner.

There's also clear agreement that there should be more definition, clearer definitions, within the environmental review framework. We agree with that.

There is also a lot of agreement as to what EDC currently considers the elements of an environmental impact assessment. We're pleased with that, because within an environmental impact assessment, one of the key elements is social impact of the project at the project level.

So there's a lot of agreement that we are looking at the right elements when we are doing an environmental assessment. Clearly, there's a desire for more objective criteria wherever they can be employed.

Finally, there is a desire on the part of NGOs to see more consultation and disclosure with respect to projects that present very significant potential for adverse environmental risk. Our disclosure policy is quite responsive to that, because it contemplates that project sponsors would have to demonstrate that they have not only done an environmental impact assessment, but that they have made that impact assessment available to the public so that affected parties would have an opportunity to comment on it, and indeed, to provide any comments to EDC in advance of EDC actually signing a loan or a financing agreement in respect of that transaction.

• 1000

So we feel that through the consultation process and the direction we've been provided from a number of channels, there is still a good prospect for balance in this area and in a transparent fashion.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I go to Dr. Patry, if you'll permit me, I have a Jean Augustine question. She didn't ask it, so I'd like to ask it on her behalf.

When the minister was before the committee yesterday, Madam Augustine asked what the department is doing for small economies, particularly the Caribbean countries, and whether there are going to be big adjustments coming with the FTA and other issues. I wondered whether the Export Development Corporation was specifically looking at that or considering how the corporation could address the needs of small economies and their need to develop and how they would fit in. Have you looked at that?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: EDC operates in some 200 countries of the world. As I mentioned earlier, we support some 6,000-plus Canadian exporters and foreign investors, 90% of whom are small and medium-sized businesses.

We don't have any special programs that target exactly what you're talking about. We are obviously very mindful of the need to do business and to continue to grow business in a number of the emerging markets. Indeed, 25% of all the business supported by EDC is in emerging markets. But it's not specifically targeted at one country or another. What we are doing is supporting Canadian exporters and where they go through the provision of our various services, be it insurance or financing. It requires an exporter and a buyer. EDC is there to facilitate that sale.

The Chair: Thank you. That's helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry and then Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with, I'd simply like to point out that from a social, human rights and environmental standpoint I must acknowledge the work and progress made in the draft solutions put forward by the EDC in the past two years, and I am very proud of that. My question is about a totally different subject.

We all know, and you mentioned it, Mr. Gillespie, that EDC clients can be found in over 200 countries worldwide. But we also know that in many of these countries, billions of dollars are laundered and go through totally legitimate corporations. My question is a simple one. How could the EDC protect itself and make sure that its clients are not indirectly related to companies or groups that attempt to launder drug money or money from any other illicit source?

Also, how do you deal with the potential problem of commissions paid to so-called intermediaries?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: Thank you for your question, Mr. Patry.

[English]

We received from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as did other financial institutions, the UN list of names of persons who could possibly be involved in those kinds of activities, and we have gone through our portfolio to ensure that no support has been given or would be given to any of those named. As well, we are putting steps in place in full compliance with Canada's obligations under the anti-corruption and bribery legislation to ensure that we are not unwittingly involved in any of those activities. So policies and procedures are in place and risk-assessment practices are there to ensure that we are not involved.

At the same time, we are not a deposit-taking institution in the same way that normal commercial banks are, so that further lessens the likelihood of any possible involvement of EDC with those kinds of parties.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, sir.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): I have only one short question. When Warren Allmand was here yesterday, he waved around several blank pages indicating that's exactly the kind of information he got when he filed questions through the access to information process in order to get information. In other words, he got nothing. All he got was blank pages.

• 1005

How do you as a crown corporation justify staying outside of access to information? What would be the great difficulty if you were open to access to information like a lot of other entities in this country?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I would like to thank the hon. member for that question. It is extremely timely, as he rightly points out. EDC is not subject to access to information legislation. This is an issue that Gowlings looked at at the time of their original report, and they rejected it. This is an issue that this committee looked at and rejected.

EDC has introduced, as has already been mentioned, a very comprehensive disclosure policy that is proactive and not reactive, unlike the ATI. I think it clearly has been shown to provide better and more complete information while still respecting commercial confidentiality. I believe that the North-South Institute, which appeared before this committee, also said that access to information does not provide the kind of information they need. The EDC disclosure policy in that regard is more timely and less costly. Those are some of the very practical things.

We can talk about the more comprehensive governance regime of EDC with regard to transparency and disclosure, including the fact that our annual report contains some 50 pages of detailed analysis and financial disclosure. So there is no shortage of information on EDC. The disclosure policy is there, and it is designed to provide the exact information that we understand the public is looking for.

Mr. John Harvard: To follow up, Mr. Chairman, it sounds to me, Mr. Gillespie, as if you're suggesting that if EDC were subject to ATI, we would be getting even less information. That seems to turn things rather upside down. I don't like to sound incredulous, but I must say I am.

Mr. Ian Gillespie: My only comment on that is I believe what Mr. Allmand was showing you yesterday is some of the difficulties he has—

Mr. John Harvard: What is less than a blank page? If he got blank pages under ATI, what would he get without it? A blank page is a blank page, is it not? You can't get anything less than a blank page, can you?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: But that was ATI, as I understand, and what we're talking about in the EDC disclosure policy is anything but. It is very comprehensive reporting.

Mr. John Harvard: In other words, he should have stayed out of the ATI and just gone to you directly and he would have gotten more information.

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I have no idea what Mr. Allmand may have been looking for in that regard.

The disclosure policy we have designed is very comprehensive and will disclose the projects we are involved in, the exporters we're involved with, the countries we are going to be selling to, and the nature of the goods and services. It will not provide commercial confidential information. But that is going to be done as we go forward in a very proactive way. In that regard I think there will be far more information in the public domain. It will be more complete, and it will be more timely.

The Chair: Just to follow up on that, we did discuss this when we were on the committee, and there was some dispute about it. But my recollection of the report was that we didn't recommend it because of the other available information.

Just to go back to Mr. Harvard's question a little more precisely, basically what you're saying is that you can file an access to information request but if you were to go to the annual report and the other sources you referred to, in fact you could get a substantial amount of information about the EDC transactions without climbing into the financial aspects of individual transactions. Is that correct?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, in order to file an access to information request you have to know that something happened. What we are suggesting is that we are going to be providing that information. Rather than reacting and seeing if someone understands what deals we've been involved in, we will be providing that information in the public domain up front shortly after the deal is consummated.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1010

Colleagues, seeing no more questions, I'm...

[Translation]

Oh, Excuse me.

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have a question. The clerk forgot to put my name back down.

The Chair: You're certainly welcome to ask a question.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You're not giving Mr. Robinson the time? Mr. Robinson doesn't need any time; he just has to show up and he makes his point.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I wish.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I neglected to say, when I began my questions earlier, that I think SEE does a pretty damn good job—EDC in English—and a lot of companies and NGOs in my riding think so as well.

On the environmental assessment framework, Mr. Siegel, you mentioned some very interesting points: for example, in the consultations you've undertaken to put that into place—and it is in the legislation, as Mr. Ross mentioned—there appeared to be a general consensus by all stakeholders that the breadth and depth of an analysis needs to be targeted to those areas or those projects you have grounds to believe would cause the greatest concern.

If it goes through, does the legislation, as amended right now, allow you to actually prioritize so you don't have to do the whole range for every single project? That's quite important. If it obliges you to do the whole range of analysis, all of the criteria, every single point for every single project, then it seems it's too weighty a requirement, which would hamper EDC in being competitive.

Secondly, unless I misunderstood my colleague Mr. Patry when he was talking about money laundering and corruption, it wasn't simply the issue of terrorist, organizations that have been linked with terrorism and have used the financial markets or doors in order to finance it. You have countries where corruption is rampant, and it has nothing to do with terrorism per se.

Canada has been one of the countries that has been leading the way on the anti-corruption legislation, policies, etc. Has the EDC also been leading the way? I assume that would be part of an environmental assessment, the whole issue of ensuring, if you're going into... It may be one of the projects for which you would do a really in-depth analysis because it's in an area of the world where we know, for instance, corruption is rampant, where we know there's money laundering from the drug trade or illegal weapons sales, etc.

That's quite a chunk, so I'll stop there.

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I'd like to thank the hon. member for her questions. I will divide this in two, if I might, and ask Mr. Siegel to speak to the environmental review framework as it relates to the screening mechanism you talked about, and then maybe ask Mr. Ross to speak very directly to the anti-corruption and bribery legislation and how we respond to that.

Mr. Eric Siegel: Very quickly, with respect to the first, I think the legislation does allow us to do that, obviously. The key is that the environmental review framework we adopt within EDC, which, as I said, is in the course of being redesigned to be enhanced in a number of areas, is a requirement to be directly responsive to the board, which, by way of directive, will have to ensure there is such a framework in place.

Therefore, the framework can be designed in a way to introduce categorization across degree lines as to the impact a project might have from an environmental perspective, and to scale the amount of analysis that is required to that categorization, as well as introduce exceptions and thresholds.

• 1015

So I think the bottom line is the legislation as it currently stands does provide for that, albeit it creates a legal requirement that EDC do this, whereas previously, EDC was doing this voluntarily as part of its due diligence processes.

Mr. Gilles Ross: If I may, I'll address the other question. Yes, Canada has adhered to the OECD convention on anti-bribery. This has resulted in our own legislation, the anti-corruption act of Canada. We have taken very important steps in recognition of both the convention and the obligations Canada has taken on, as well as our legislation. We are training our employees to recognize situations of possible corruption. We are promoting anti-corruption measures among our Canadian customers.

In addition to that, with respect to our various programs of financing and insurance, we have developed an entire system of additions to our documentation. For instance, we are requesting from Canadian exporters who are customers of EDC, declarations that they're not privy to any such arrangements. We are incorporating in our loan documentation with borrowers representations and covenants to the effect they are not breaching, and will not breach, any applicable legislation in this regard.

In our insurance policies, we are incorporating exclusions of liabilities, which we would be able to invoke to refuse to pay claims, for instance, should we have appropriate evidence. As well, we are also incorporating termination provisions that would allow the corporation to actually terminate an insurance policy if we were satisfied the policy holder had embarked on inappropriate conduct.

So yes, indeed, we have a very elaborate program in that regard.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to hear that.

[Translation]

The Chair: All right?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes it's all right.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for arriving late. If my question has already been asked, I'll be glad to review the transcript.

It concerns the proposed amendment with respect to the environmental impacts of projects that may be funded by the EDC, in particular, proposed subsection 10.1(2), which refers to the board issuing a directive respecting the determination referred to in proposed subsection 10.1(1). That directive gives the board the power to define various words and expressions, including “project”, “mitigation measures”, and so on; to establish the criteria the corporation must apply in making the determination; and to establish exceptions, specifically or by any class, as defined by the board to the corporation's obligation to make the determination.

I'm sure Mr. Gillespie and the witnesses will be aware of the fact that there's been significant comment on the sweeping nature of these powers by a number of NGO witnesses who have appeared before the committee.

I wonder if we could hear from the witnesses as to whether they've given any consideration at this point to the kinds of definitions, criteria, or exceptions they may be contemplating under the provisions of this proposed subsection 10.1(2).

Mr. Ian Gillespie: I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, and I will call upon my colleagues Mr. Ross and Mr. Siegel to respond, first with regard to the overall governance regime here, which I think is extremely important to understand, then perhaps more specifically with regard to the environmental review framework itself and some of the criteria, which maybe Mr. Siegel could speak to.

Mr. Gilles Ross: Yes, indeed, the government is seeking a very broad delegation to the board of directors in connection with the establishment of the directive, as the term is used in the section. This is necessary to enable the corporation to be able to respond quickly and with flexibility to rapid changes and evolving standards in a very competitive environment. However, there are safeguards in the bill itself with respect to ensuring that the corporation adopts a directive that is appropriate.

• 1020

The first one is the provision for an audit by the Office of the Auditor General as to the design and implementation of the directive. That first audit will be conducted in two years after the implementation of the directive, as has already been indicated by the Minister for International Trade. Also, we have referred to our disclosure framework, which will be a very key component of the directive in terms of providing for upfront disclosure on an aggregate basis of EDC transactions, EDC business, on a quarterly basis, with, in addition, disclosure of transactions entered into in support of projects by way of financing and guarantees and political risk insurance of loans and equity.

Also, that disclosure framework contains a proposal with respect to those projects that have the greatest potential for adverse environmental risk. The proponents of these projects would be required to make available, 45 days in advance of the EDC signing, information with respect to the projects in question. This particular proposal will be examined and implemented in the context of the consultation process that's now underway with respect to the environmental review framework.

In addition to that, of course, as you know, the government has at its disposal various means under the Financial Administration Act, for instance, to require the corporation to take whatever action it deems to be appropriate. It also appoints the board of directors and therefore controls the corporation that way.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I could interrupt for a minute, I appreciate that sort of overview of some of the mechanisms that may be in place to review the directive, but my question was of a different nature. I asked specifically whether you've given any consideration to the kinds of criteria that might be applied in these circumstances and also the definitions of the words we're talking about here.

We're being asked to delegate very sweeping powers to the board. In fact, the researcher for the committee, Mr. Haggart, from the Library of Parliament, has pointed out that there is an apparent loophole in the bill. On the one hand, as he says, the EDC is required to make an environmental determination, but at the same time the bill gives the board the power to exempt any transaction, or entire class of transactions, from the requirement to even make a determination. That's a very sweeping power. It's not clear to me why you need that power, frankly. That's what I'm struggling with here. I know Mr. Siegel—

Mr. Eric Siegel: Perhaps I can help in that regard.

First off, I think it's important to understand that we have an environmental review framework. We're not starting from scratch to design an environmental review framework. We have one. It was introduced as a public document in 1999—

Mr. Svend Robinson: But there's no legislative framework.

Mr. Eric Siegel: —and it includes definitions and it includes process. Indeed, the Auditor General has reviewed that framework and, as indicated earlier, opined that it contains most of the elements of a suitably designed framework.

We're not stopping there. We understand there are enhancements that have to be made to the framework and we are in the process of making those enhancements. But we have an existing framework to begin with. That's the first thing.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm just going to interrupt for a minute. You have an existing framework, but it's entirely discretionary. You could wipe it out with the stroke of a pen tomorrow. There's no legislative basis for that whatsoever.

Mr. Eric Siegel: The legislation will make it a legal requirement for EDC to have a framework and to apply the framework. EDC conducted environmental reviews as a standard practice in its due diligence, but to the extent that any discretion existed, that is not the environment we are talking about here.

The government has provided a very extensive guidance document to EDC in terms of what the elements, the definitions, and the scope of the framework would be, and what products it should apply to as well, and the types of situations to which EDC's environmental review framework should be responsive. The Auditor General has made recommendations in that regard as well.

• 1025

As I indicated earlier, we have just completed a cross-country consultation in which we went out to over 300 interested parties in this regard and had extensive participation consultation around the issues of what should be in the framework, how it should be structured, around the issues of definition and process, and application of the framework.

Clearly, one of the aspects is that leading frameworks in this regard—whether you're talking about the IFC, whether you're talking about all the other multilateral development banks—employ categorization. That is, they do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to environmental assessment. They categorize projects on the basis of their impact on the environment so that the right amount of effort and the right amount of analysis is brought to that. This legislation obviously would provide for that.

They also provide for exceptions. There are some products for which an environmental review would not be appropriate. For instance, the Auditor General made reference in their report to the fact that no export credit agencies in fact apply an environmental review to their short-term credits insurance. EDC could exempt that as well, similar to others, but we would merely have to be clear as to the rationale for exempting that. We're not dealing with projects in that particular case, we're dealing with short-term, receivable-type sales of products that do not present any adverse environmental impact of that nature.

There are other exceptions that we are considering and we have not decided upon. For instance, the OECD has right now a draft agreement that would apply to all OECD countries in which they have suggested that for transactions of under two years, or for transactions of under $10 million, either no environmental review would be required or a scaled down or discretionary environmental review would be required. Indeed, the U.S. Ex-Im Bank, which is often referred to by NGOs as being an example of the best practice, employs all of these methods—categorization as well as clear exemptions around certain products or the term of exposure that they will be undertaking—in respect of a given project.

So these are some of the areas we are looking at right now as we now incorporate the results of the consultation, all the guidance we've been provided, in redrafting our environmental review plan to augment it from what already exists today.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a couple of other brief follow-up questions. Why would you not want this directive to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by ensuring that in fact it did come under the framework of the Statutory Instruments Act?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: If I might, Mr. Chairman, I think the question the member is asking is really all about the governance regime of EDC at the end of the day. EDC is a crown corporation that operates as a commercial financial institution. We are in the risk business, and we supported $45 billion last year. So there's no question that the board has to have broad powers in order for EDC to function and to provide the services that exporters need to do business internationally, but there are a lot of safeguards at the same time, not only for the government but the public at large, in terms of that governance regime. There is the board of directors itself, the fact that there is the Financial Administration Act, the fact that our corporate plan has to be approved by the minister—

Mr. Svend Robinson: What does this have to do with the Statutory Instruments Act?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: We can speak specifically to that in a minute—

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's my question.

Mr. Ian Gillespie: If I might just give you the whole—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm interested in governance, but we don't need a lesson on governance in the EDC. My question is very specific. Why would the EDC not want to be subject to the Statutory Instruments Act? This very important directive, which is being issued in terms of environmental impact—why shouldn't that be considered a statutory instrument so that Parliament as well could have oversight under the framework of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments?

Mr. Ian Gillespie: Parliament has huge oversight of EDC, but on your specific issue I'm obviously not as well-versed as my colleague, Mr. Ross, and perhaps he could speak to it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sure.

Mr. Gilles Ross: Thank you.

As you know, the Statutory Instruments Act offers an opportunity for the public to be informed of upcoming subordinate legislation by way of regulation and it also offers an opportunity for scrutiny. I believe the government has felt that the governance around the corporation was providing that opportunity in any event.

• 1030

As you know, we have already conducted a great deal of consultation on the framework. We are committed to that, and of course in terms of scrutiny the government has provided for the audit by the Auditor General, whose reports are not only in the public domain but will be tabled in Parliament and then referred to a committee of Parliament.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, this is not about governance. This is about one specific directive, one directive that deals with environmental impact assessment. Why shouldn't the public have an opportunity to comment on that specific directive, and why shouldn't parliamentarians have an opportunity to review it, just as they would any other statutory instrument?

Mr. Gilles Ross: The ERF will have to evolve as international standards with respect to environmental risk review are evolving. This can happen very quickly; therefore the corporation requires flexibility. It must be able to respond to change very quickly. At the same time, there is built into the EDC system by way of administrative requirements these opportunities for consultation as well as for review. Certainly, the Auditor General's review will be a very strong proxy and the report of the office will be a public report.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Frankly, I haven't heard any explanation as to why this specific directive shouldn't be subject to that act.

The Chair: The witnesses have given the best answer they can based on that. The answer is that the government in its wisdom didn't choose to include it in the act. So it's a political decision on behalf of the government and the lawyer can't help us with that reasoning.

This concludes this part of our hearings. Again, I want to thank the witnesses.

Before I adjourn for five minutes, which I'm going to do in order to be able to have a look at the amendments, because we've just received Mr. Robinson's amendments, let me tell you what we're going to try to do so everybody understands what the process is going to be.

The first thing, colleagues, is we've been discussing this issue for a long time. We've obviously all looked at the parameters of all the issues. We have an hour and a half. I hope we can get clause-by-clause done by noon. I really don't see why we shouldn't be able to, particularly with, I hope, some helpful recommendations that I'm going to make.

I'm going to go through the proposed amendments. I've seen some and most are in order. There are one or two I've seen that I don't believe are in order; I'm going to confirm that. When we begin the hearings, I'll tell you which ones are not in order, in my view. At that point, as you know, that's not a debatable ruling. I'll explain to you the reason for my ruling, because I don't think we just rule it out of order, but it's not debatable. Then if you want to challenge that, you can ask for a vote and we'll go on.

So we'll get the ones that I view out of order. If the committee wants to hear them or not, we'll make that decision and we'll get them off the table so we don't have to worry about them.

The second thing I'm going to do is that the ones I consider in order... So far I've had a chance to look at the Bloc resolutions. For example, there's an amendment in here that expands proposed section 10.1 to deal with international obligations. I understand Mr. Robinson has a similar amendment. I'm going to ask him if we can get together and get one amendment, so we don't have to spend hours in deciding do we vote one down and then the other one down, etc.

I understand you also have an environmental issue. Mr. Paquette has an environmental amendment. Let's see if we can just have one of them and discuss one of them rather than two or three. That's what we'll try to do. I think if we can get that done we can clear away some of the underbrush and then move rather more rapidly through the procedural issues of voting up or down the various clauses with the amendments. Is that satisfactory?

Colleagues, if we could take just a five-minute break to allow the clerk and the legal officers and me to look at the proposed amendments, then I'll give you my rulings and we can start the procedural part.

Again, thank you very much for coming, Mr. Gillespie, and your team, and we wish you well with what you're doing for the Canadian economy.

• 1034

• 1053

The Chair: Colleagues, we are about to recommence clause-by-clause. We have, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Jensen and Madam Levesque.

Thank you very much for coming to join us for this.

I have a couple of observations. We want to do this bill and also have an opportunity to have a discussion about future business, namely how we will handle the foreign legations bill, which has now been passed by the House and will be coming to us.

I'd hoped we could do this by 12 o'clock. Obviously we won't be able to do that. But let's hope we can get through this part fairly rapidly. As I said earlier, we've had the opportunity to discuss most of these issues. What we really want to try to do is make sure we don't lose a great deal of time in procedural wrangling. So if we can deal with that as quickly as possible, I'd like to do that.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance yet to fully review Mr. Robinson's amendments—we've just received them—so they will have to be looked at as each clause comes up.

• 1055

However, I do have observations on two of them. But what I'm going to do is just tell you right now what I intend to do first with the Bloc amendments in terms of whether they're admissible or not. Bloc amendment 1, which is the first one in your package, is admissible because it provides for definitions that relate to the amendments to clause 9, which is their amendment 3, I think, and that is in order.

So both Bloc amendments 1 and 3 are in order. Bloc amendment 2, colleagues, which you'll see provides to amend clause 8, is to be amended to amend section 10 of the act. They have added the phrase “while fulfilling Canada's international commitments”, which goes back to the discussion we had about that issue.

Mr. Robinson has proposed a similar amendment. It would relate to “in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations”. I understand, Mr. Robinson, you're willing to withdraw your amendment in favour of the Bloc amendment.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's correct.

The Chair: So Mr. Robinson's amendment to clause 8 can be withdrawn. You can cross that out. It's not going to be proposed.

As I said, the next Bloc amendment deals with the environmental issues. It's in order. However, Mr. Robinson has a series of amendments that also amend clause 9.

So what I propose is that when we come to clause 9 we will debate the merits of the Bloc amendment first, and if it's voted down, then we'll go through the main clause and take Mr. Robinson's amendments as they come, because there will be individual wording throughout.

We'll look at the Bloc amendment first. When it is decided whether it's accepted or not, then we can go to Mr. Robinson's amendment. I take it, Mr. Robinson, if the Bloc amendment is adopted, then you'll drop these amendments. Obviously they wouldn't be appropriate, because they wouldn't apply to the amendment any more. That's how we'll deal with that.

The next amendment is Bloc amendment 4, which deals with the Auditor General reporting every two years instead of every five, which was provided in the draft bill, and that's in order obviously, because it just modifies something in the bill.

The last amendment, however, providing for the establishment of an export ombudsman I'm going to rule is out of order. It provides for expanding the bill. It goes beyond the scope of the bill. It creates a new institution. I'm advised it also would create a charge upon the Crown, which we're not entitled to do at amendment stage. In order to maintain the position of ombudsman would require expenses of the Crown. I'm going to have to rule that amendment out of order. As I say, that is not a debatable ruling, so Mr. Paquette, if you want to challenge it, challenge it now.

That's not challenged, so you can take that one—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, one of my amendments was also to the same effect. I would withdraw my amendment in accordance with the chair's ruling.

The Chair: Good. That's very helpful, and I appreciate your help. So when we come to that amendment it will be withdrawn.

There's just one other amendment of yours, Mr. Robinson, which I'd have to rule out of order at this stage, and that is your amendment—we don't have these numbered—to deal with the Auditor General Act. That's outside the scope of the bill. We can't amend the Auditor General Act when we're dealing with the Export Development Act.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Where is that?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's right near the end. It's the fourth one from the end.

The Chair: I'm sorry they're not numbered, but it's the fourth last from the end.

So again I'd rule that one out of order. I don't know if you want to challenge that ruling. If so, do it now, and then we can go back and start our business.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, Mr. Chairman. That's fine.

The Chair: Good. Thank you for your cooperation everybody.

Then we will begin in the normal process.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

• 1100

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have an amendment to clause 3 that seeks to define a number of terms.

The Chair: To add definitions.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Exactly.

The Chair: Can I propose something here? These definitions are directly linked to your amendment. This amendment is relevant only if we also adopt your amendments to clause 10, correct?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: No, because these are the definitions found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The Chair: Therefore, your amendment is relevant even without the changes to clause 10.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That's right.

The Chair: All right.

[English]

Do you want to quickly speak to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: As you will see, clause 10.1 states that the corporation can define a number of terms. We feel that it must not only define them, but it must use the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act definition. This is why the amendment contains the definition of “environmental effects” and “environment”. Let me point out that in the definition of “environmental effects” we introduce the socioeconomic dimensions, environmental assessment, mitigation and project measures, which are all relevant in an environmental assessment framework. If you wish, I can read these definitions. I'd be extremely pleased to do so.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Can we take them as read, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes. I don't think you have to read them.

A couple of colleagues have mentioned this to me, and I'm just bringing it up now. We should discuss it later. We should maybe be more conscientious about getting the amendments to members earlier. There are some quite complicated issues here, and the other members are just seeing them for the first time. It's quite difficult to get them to agree or not agree, when in fact if they had had them in their offices last night or something, it would have been very helpful—even for myself. I'm just sitting here ruling on them as I got them this morning.

Mr. Paquette, you are légèrement coupable. Mr. Robinson is guilty as sin because he just walked in and dropped an encyclopedia on our heads.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mine broke my hand.

The Chair: So it's going to be hard for the members to treat the amendments with the seriousness they deserve when in fact they've only received them—

Mr. Stan Keyes: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of cooperation, and having served in opposition myself for five years, I think sometimes it can be very beneficial to try to carry an amendment that may very well be worthwhile, that may have a positive impact on the bill. I'm prepared to look at any amendment that any member of Parliament brings forward, government or opposition. As you say, it makes it very difficult to come on board when an amendment that would be put forward to this committee is dropped on us at literally the last moment, causing us to even wait for photocopies before we can go to clause-by-clause.

I would hope the committee, maybe through subcommittee—not at the end of this day but on a future date, and I would say the immediate future—through the steering committee, could get together and make a recommendation to institute a rule that I had, for example, on the transport committee, that said if a member of the opposition or government had an amendment, it would be presented to the clerk of the committee at least 24 hours before the committee dealt with the bill in clause-by-clause so as to allow members to receive these amendments in their offices, go through them, and even run them by the government minister or the government LA or EA, or anyone, where the minister might say, “This isn't a bad idea”, or the department, etc., and it might well be adopted.

This makes it impossible. We'll give it as much consideration as we can today, but there's not a lot we can do with an amendment that is dropped on us... I'm just asking if perhaps the steering committee could discuss this and possibly come up with an opportunity for members to see these things at least 24 hours in advance of a clause-by-clause consideration.

The Chair: Perhaps I was wrong to introduce this.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You were, but you opened a can of worms.

The Chair: I know. I opened the can of worms, so now I have to eat them.

I have Madame Jennings, Mr. Paquette, Mr. Robinson, and then we'll close off the debate on this subject and we'll move back to clause-by-clause.

Madame Jennings.

• 1105

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Very briefly, I can only echo the statements made by my colleague, Mr. Keyes. I presume good faith on the part of everyone sitting around the table who is a member of this committee—and I'll even extend that to the government officials.

A voice: Even?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: However, I'm a lawyer by training, and one of the principles we are taught as a first-year law student is that when you're talking about legislation, one mistake in even typing up and then printing and adopting—a “to” instead of a “by”, or whatever—can change fundamentally the object and the effect of a specific article, even beyond what the author and the presenter of that particular amendment wanted.

Therefore, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting any of these amendments. I find that really regrettable because they may, in their substance, be worthy of amendment, but because I would like to have the time, not just to consider but in that consideration determine what is the actual impact... I'm told, for instance, that the first amendment by our colleague, Mr. Paquette, which would amend clause 3, the definitions, is found in another piece of legislation. While I presume good faith on his part, I would have liked to have had the time to pull that piece of legislation and check myself to make sure it mirrors exactly those definitions.

So I simply want to explain why I'm going to have a difficult time supporting any of the amendments, because I have not had the time to do that. That's why I support Mr. Keyes' suggestion that this committee look at the possibility of putting into place an actual procedure for amendments that will provide the time to all members to give due consideration to amendments proposed by any of the members.

An hon. member: Maybe there is a process.

The Chair: No, there isn't. I spoke to this earlier. I'm advised that the process is they're allowed to bring amendments at the last minute. They're not doing anything that's not permitted by the rules at this time. We should look at whether we want to change the rules.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Precisely, our good faith is being called into question. We respect the rules of the game. If the committee wants to delay clause-by-clause consideration until the beginning of next week in order to familiarize itself with the amendments, I see no problem. However, I can tell you that in many committees, we get the impression we're being bulldozed by the government, particularly in the case of the antiterrorism bill.

This is part of the rules we've set up for ourselves, and they must be respected. I wouldn't have a problem if the rules were different, if we weren't expected to table amendments 48 hours ahead of time. Here we're told that we can table them during clause-by-clause consideration. I hope that these amendments will be considered on their merits, otherwise we will take the time we need to do so. As I said earlier, I'd be extremely pleased to read my amendments so that people can have time to absorb them.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I want to, to a significant extent, agree with what both Stan and Marlene have said.

I've been on committees now for a little over 20 years, and I don't in any way disagree that this particular approach is just not helpful to the committee. I quite accept that. I can only say that in the case of the amendments that I've brought forward, we were actively attempting to have these amendments quite some time ago. We gave instructions on Monday to the legislative counsel, and apparently there have been some difficulties in translation. But I quite agree that if you're presented with amendments literally minutes before you are asked to consider them, it makes it very difficult. I don't disagree with that at all.

In terms of a kind of hard and fast rule that you have to have them in 24 hours ahead of time, I don't think that's necessary because there will be things that sometimes come up at the last minute in discussion, even sometimes during the course of clause-by-clause, that make some sense. It might be a fairly minor amendment and it makes some sense. So I don't think that's necessary. But I agree completely in terms of the general principle that we want to get them ahead of time.

In that spirit, I've reviewed a number of the amendments I've proposed and in fact there is some complication. It doesn't necessarily flow directly from the evidence we've heard, and I'm not going to proceed with those amendments out of respect for my colleagues. I just don't think it's reasonable to spring them on colleagues at the last minute.

There are other amendments, however, that flow directly and are not particularly complicated. I would hope that the members on the government side would give serious consideration to them.

• 1110

This committee has already dealt with the first amendment we proposed, which the Bloc has proposed as well, just making sure we respect our international commitments. I've heard the members of the committee. I will not proceed with those amendments that require any particularly detailed consideration at this time because I don't think it's an appropriate way to proceed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have just one quick comment on this point of order.

I want to thank Svend for his input. The provisions made in a former committee I chaired, transport... I would like to pursue still a discussion of the steering... Svend, to answer your question about whether there are going to be times when you can amend right at clause-by-clause, we built in that with the unanimous consent of the members present at the committee the 24-hour rule could be waived in order to bring forward an amendment. There is still opportunity there to build the rules properly so that...

Mr. Svend Robinson: Let's look at it in the spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, but I'd like to have that discussion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: As you may recall, when we had the international criminal court bill before this committee, we actually amended it 18 times, and the government came on side because the time was taken to discuss the amendments with them. It can work if you work at it. But anyway, we're back to... We're where we are where we are, and so I'd like to go back to the discussion specifically about clause 3.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette, do you have any other comments? You've tabled the amendment.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: As I mentioned, these definitions are largely exerpted from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We haven't invented anything new here.

The Chair: All right.

[English]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a quick comment, Mr. Chairman.

Given some time, we could have massaged this a bit more, but given that it's before us now, I feel very hesitant about supporting this particular amendment. Let's take a for instance; Société nationale, the bank in Quebec, deals closely with EDC. As I understand it, if Société nationale is involved in, say, a capital project with a huge sum of money attached to it, it would work with EDC in order to help that bank finance a capital project.

For example, has Mr. Paquette checked with the bank in Quebec to say, look, would it cause any kind of onerous problems for you to suddenly bring a project forward to EDC and find it now has to go through an environmental review, which I believe has been explained and covered off by the EDC officials in having the instruments necessary to do this kind of thing? Has he done a little bit of investigation back home to say, what do you think, for example, as an organization that, at times, will have to work with EDC? Is this going to cause you problems with your capital projects, etc.?

Without the benefit of an answer to this, I don't want to stand in the way of projects in Quebec or those small and medium-sized businesses who deal with EDC, of which there are many in Quebec, who would suddenly have to have this onerous task of having environmental reviews placed upon them through EDC because they are going to work with EDC.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Have we come to the question?

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 8)

The Chair: Mr. Robinson has kindly withdrawn his amendment.

Mr. Paquette.

• 1115

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: This amendment to clause 8 seeks to replace subsection 10(1) by the following:

10. (1) The Corporation is established for the purposes of supporting and developing directly or indirectly, Canada's export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to international business opportunities, while fulfilling Canada's international commitments.

Over the past few weeks, we've have the opportunity to see a large number of groups who asked us to add this notion. It seems to me that it goes without saying that if Canada makes commitments, a Corporation such as the Export Development Corporation must be obligated by these commitments. It seems to me even more important following the events of September 11. We are all aware of the fact that we must deploy every effort possible to participate in the development of countries that are less developed than our own.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I would very much hope members on all sides of the committee would be prepared to support this amendment because it simply reiterates a proposal this committee has unanimously made to the government before.

Committee members will recall that in our report from December 1999, Exporting in the Canadian Interest, we specifically recommended this clause to the government. We suggested the addition of a provision in section 10 of the Export Development Act—

Mr. John Harvard: What page of the report?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's recommendation number one of the report on page 19, John.

Recommendation 1

While it may be difficult to achieve agreement on a definitive formula which would satisfy everyone's interests and concerns, the Committee suggests adding a provision to Section 10 of the Export Development Act to the following effect:

That in carrying out its mandate and exercising its powers, the Corporation shall give due regard to the benefits to Canada to be derived therefrom, and to the commitments and obligations undertaken by Canada under international agreements.

That was our unanimous recommendation to the government. And, in fact, when the government responded, the official response said that, as Canada's official export credit agency, the EDC must meet the requirement to operate to the benefit of Canada and to abide by Canada's international commitments. That was the government's response, that we must meet those international commitments. Accordingly, the government agrees with the principle of this recommendation. Why didn't it make it into the bill? Who knows, Mr. Chairman.

But I would certainly hope this committee would be prepared to say that in fulfilling its obligations the EDC would meet our international commitments. I proposed a similar amendment. My wording was somewhat different. If members of the committee feel it's more appropriate we can deal with that. I had suggested we do it “in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations” as opposed to “while fulfilling Canada's international commitments”.

But whether it's “in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations” or “while fulfilling Canada's international commitments”, the only other point I would make is that this is not unprecedented. In fact, the Australian legislation, the legislation that sets up the Australian Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, which has been in place for 10 years now, requires the Australian corporation to have regard to Australia's obligations under international agreements. It's the same requirement, Mr. Chairman. So I would hope this would be accepted by the members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

First of all, we can all agree to the principle, but the day the series of witnesses—and I don't think Mr. Robinson was able to be there at that point—made reference to the Australian example, I noted that the wording he's just read, “have regard to”... I'm not a lawyer, but you don't need to be a lawyer to understand that telling somebody to “have regard to” something is not the same, just logically not the same, as telling them to fulfill commitments, etc.

My second point is that I asked those witnesses to table with this committee any other examples they had of countries who had any type of requirement like this in law in their legislation, and to my knowledge we've had no further examples. So I would suggest to you that the one example cited, Australia, is not very strong. Secondly, there have been no other examples cited by witnesses.

And thirdly, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I'd like to hear from our officials on... Frankly, I see this type of statement as too vague. While we can agree with it in principle, we don't have a strong enough reason to put it in the legislation, but I'd like to hear from the officials on it.

• 1120

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jensen, and then I'll go to Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Martin Jensen (Officer, Export Financing Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you.

Yes, I thank Mr. Robinson for bringing attention to the government response to the recommendation of this committee. He read a paragraph of the government response. There was a further qualification given, though, by the government. This was in May 2000, over a year ago, when the government responded.

The government did say it agreed with the principle of this recommendation, that's true. But the paragraph and the response goes on to state “As a practical matter, however, further study is required to define benefits to Canada and to identify”—and this is the critical point—“options for providing clarity, including legislative options”—but not exclusively—“on a basis that would not lead to adverse consequences for exporters. Recommendations will be prepared for the consideration of Cabinet.”

Now this process of the consideration of options went on for a year. I only wish to bring to your attention that as early as May 2000, in reviewing and accepting the principle of this committee's recommendation, the government pointed to certain risks and considerations that would have to be taken before a decision was made.

Last night before you my minister explained the reason we have not put this into the act. He pointed to the different nature of certain Canadian/international conventions and commitments. Some are very general. They are cast at the level of broad principle. There is no clear operational guidance on how to implement them.

In other cases there is very clear guidance. A case in point is the recent OECD anti-bribery convention. There were legislative changes, changes to Canadian domestic law—the Criminal Code was amended—in order to accord with this convention. Also as OECD witnesses said earlier this morning, they have changed their documentation, and when they review applications for support they demand certain things of their customers to ensure that this convention is complied with.

The distinction my minister drew then was between cases where we can act with certainty as to legal obligations and those where we have the difficulty of putting into effect a very general statement of principle without guidance, as Mr. O'Brien said. That is the government position on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll just say a couple of words, Mr. Chairman.

I see very little symmetry between the amendment as proposed by Mr. Paquette and the recommendation cited in the report. I find the use of the words “fulfilling Canada's international commitments”, without identifying all those commitments, a rather sweeping provision. I wouldn't be able to support it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Chairman, Mr. O'Brien's argument is flawed. He says that there is no precedent and that Australia is apparently the only... To my mind, that's not convincing. If, as he states, Canada wants to play a leadership role in human rights and transparency, we have to take the initiative.

When we asked Minister Pettigrew to disclose the texts of the Free Trade of the Americas negotiations, he said that that had never been done before in any previous negotiation. But eventually, we did get those texts. If we never move, we'll always stay behind. We got them because we exerted pressure on Mr. Pettigrew and in turn requested them from his counterparts in other countries.

Canada's commitments, be they general or specific, are not a flower in our lapel. If they are genuine, they imply responsibilities, particularly for crown corporations. I really fail to understand how as parliamentarians, we could disagree that a crown corporation should have a duty to respect commitments made by the Canadian government as part of its mandate. I'm eager to see you explain that to NGOs and the Canadian public at large.

• 1125

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a proposed alternate wording, but before I put that wording I want to just ask a question of Mr. Jensen.

Mr. Jensen indicated that some of Canada's international commitments were not clear, in terms of how we would implement them. I wonder if he could just elaborate on that. Which international agreements are not clear, in terms of respecting them under the provisions of this proposed amendment?

Mr. Martin Jensen: I'm not an expert in international public law, but if we point to something as fundamental as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Canada is a signatory, as are all UN nations. The actual implementation of those obligations in different countries will vary, I think you would agree.

The notion of human rights even varies within Canada, from province to province, in terms of provincial human rights codes. So the question then is, what is the specific content of that commitment in a given case? Is it a Canadian commitment? Is it what the federal human rights code would require, or the Quebec human rights code? Would it be sufficient to say that the state of Mexico or Brazil—I'll stop if you feel I'm not answering—has different views?

Mr. Svend Robinson: With respect, when Canada signs on to international agreements, we undertake to respect those agreements on behalf of the federal government. Again, I'm trying to understand what the difficulty is in adopting a statement of principle that we would respect those. In your earlier appearance before this committee, you indicated that in fact the corporation is required to respect those commitments.

[Translation]

Ms. Agnès Levesque (Legal Counsel, Justice Legal Service Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): An agreement in principle that might be signed by Canada with other countries doesn't necessarily have the same force as a treaty. A treaty brings about international obligations whereas an agreement in principle is simply a political agreement.

So I don't think it's appropriate to include in a bill an obligation for a crown corporation to respect the various political agreements that Canada may sign at various levels in response to needs or particular situations.

Secondly—

Mr. Svend Robinson: What would be an example of an agreement in principle?

Ms. Agnès Levesque: An agreement in principle is to deploy all possible efforts to promote... In fact, the other problem is precisely that agreeing to deploy efforts is not the same thing as agreeing to implement an obligation of a treaty.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: So then we agree that a commitment is making an effort to—

Ms. Agnès Levesque: Yes. If we force a crown corporation to respect Canada's international commitments, it's not up to the crown corporation to determine Canada's foreign policy. Moreover, you should be aware that this is very, very vague vocabulary and that it would be difficult to have it recognized by the courts. By imposing on Canadian corporations who will be requesting financing the obligation to respect human rights, for instance, we end up—

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That's our objective.

Ms. Agnès Levesque: Yes, but in Canada, a Canadian corporation has no obligation to respect commitments provided for in the charter. The corporation must respect provincial law. The charter only applies to—

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, but here we're talking about international commitments and for the most part, these are entered into by the federal government, unfortunately.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Sorry. Do you have a point of order? Otherwise, we really have discussed this issue at great length.

• 1130

Mr. Svend Robinson: You don't call the question on amendments, unless there is some new procedure that I'm not aware of in committee.

Mr. Harvard made a point with respect to the earlier amendment that was proposed by this committee. There's also the wording of the Australian legislation, which requires that the similar body “have regard to Australia's obligations under international agreements”. If this amendment proposed by Mr. Paquette is defeated, I propose we include similar wording that would implement the identical recommendation Mr. Harvard made.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: A point of order, Mr. Chair. The member is suggesting an amendment to his amendment.

The Chair: No, it's an amendment to the Bloc's.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No. If the Bloc amendment is defeated, then he's suggesting... Well then let him wait until we find out what happens with the Bloc's amendment, before he raises this.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm quite prepared to do that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: So in that case on this amendment at least we can put the question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: You're welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like a recorded division on this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: I beg your pardon?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like a recorded division on this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: We'd like a vote.

Okay, BQ-2.

Mr. John Duncan: May I get clarification before we go to the vote? I did talk to you separately. We had Bill C-32 in the House this morning. It totally overlapped with discussions going on here, which are important, but it involves some of the same people, particularly myself. I had no opportunity to be in two places at one time, so much of this discussion and debate has gone on without me.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Talk to your whip.

Mr. John Duncan: Talk to your House leader who coordinates all this stuff.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I agree with your House leader.

Mr. John Duncan: It may be so, but my point is if we're going straight to voting here, I really don't know what I'm voting on.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We've had the discussions.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Chair—

The Chair: Let Mr. Duncan finish first, and then we'll move to the vote.

Mr. John Duncan: My point is, if you're going to move to clause-by-clause without giving me an opportunity to catch up on some of this, I'm going to object. That's all I can do.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Well to be fair, Mr. Chairman, point of order—

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Point of order.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm sorry, do you want a point of order before my point of order, Aileen?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Ladies first. Forget all that gender-neutral stuff.

I just want to mention, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, that the hon. member joins all of us in the same predicament. As these amendments were brought to us today, we had no more time than you and are in the same situation of being compelled to deal with them. Even though it has been advised by the chair, it is in the rules. So you have our empathy.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, in that respect, we're going to look at whether the committee should adopt the rule that we must have the amendments at least 24 hours ahead of time.

Mr. Stan Keyes: My point is completely different.

The Chair: We discussed that while you were speaking in the House.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Maybe for the benefit of Mr. Duncan too, his colleague Rick Casson was here for the entire discussion and debate that took place before we brought in these clauses to deal with them, and amendments, at clause-by-clause. He left and Mr. Duncan came in. That's not a problem with this committee; it's more of a problem with his party and his colleague, who sat through all this discussion.

Mr. John Duncan: I talked to Mr. Casson. He has the same problem. He's over speaking on Bill C-32.

Mr. Stan Keyes: He was your party's representative here. We can't deal with that.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien is out speaking on Bill C-32 too, so we're all kind of at sixes and sevens.

However, we were in the midst of putting the question.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7, yeas 3, abstentions 1)

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

• 1135

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, following the discussion, I want to propose another amendment. The amendment would read as follows. If you look at the first amendment, which is at the top of my package of proposed amendments—

Mr. Stan Keyes: The one we disallowed?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, the one I was proceeding with. That was withdrawn, but this is an attempt to respond to the concerns that were raised with respect to the earlier amendment.

It would read as follows:

The corporation is established for the purposes of supporting and developing, directly or indirectly, Canada's export trade and Canadian capacity to engage in that trade and to respond to international business opportunities, having regard to Canada's obligations under international agreements.

Mr. Chairman, that would be the identical wording that this committee proposed previously, and it's also the wording in the Australian legislation that governs their export development corporation act. I would hope members of this committee would see fit to adopt in legislative form the recommendation we accepted previously.

The Chair: Colleagues, before we get into a long discussion about it, let me just say this. We've discussed this principle now for 35 minutes, so we all know what the principle is. We don't need to discuss it for half an hour. I understand what Mr. Robinson's doing—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's an attempt to reflect the recommendation of the committee.

The Chair: Yes. Unless there's debate on it, I would suggest we just put the question as to whether or not we'd like Mr. Robinson's formulation, if that would be acceptable.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could we have a recorded vote on that?

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, do you think it would be fair to ask Mr. Jensen to—

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it wouldn't be. We had it already.

The Chair: Well, it would be fair, if you want to get out of here at midnight, but...

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Very briefly, I think Mr. Jensen already explained that this was given due consideration, that the report of the SCFAIT committee was considered by the government, and for very good and sound reasons, as the minister mentioned, the government doesn't feel this type of wording should be in the legislation. I think he's explained that.

The Chair: It's the same issue phrased somewhat differently. It's perfectly acceptable, but let's have a look and see how it goes.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

(On clause 9)

The Chair: Colleagues, now we move to clause 9, and as you'll recall from how I explained it at the beginning, Mr. Paquette has a substantial amendment, which we'll allow him to speak to. I hope you'll agree the way we should go is to deal with his proposed amendment, and in the event it's accepted, Mr. Robinson will withdraw all of his amendments; in the event it's defeated, then we'll deal with Mr. Robinson's amendments one by one when we come to the subclauses.

[Translation]

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the bill, the frame of reference is very nebulous, very timid. It's the corporation itself that designs its own framework which, as a matter of fact, is not provided for by law and which has been deficient in the past; the Auditor General's report has demonstrated this. Therefore, what I'm proposing is a frame of reference that is clear and that is inspired by that of the World Bank.

With your permission, out of respect for the committee, I know that it's a bit long but I would still like to read this process so that members can see what it's all about. So with your permission, I will—

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, we have this lengthy amendment in front of us. We all read it carefully. I don't know what Mr. Paquette was doing, but I've read through my documents. I think we could get this as read.

• 1140

The Chair: It's a matter of debate. Rather than discussing it, you want to read it. There's nothing I can do to stop you from doing that.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I'd like to point out the contradiction in the point of order. There are complaints when we put forward amendments too late, but still, government members don't even want to familiarize themselves with them. So I will take it upon myself to read this one.

The Chair: That's not what we're saying. We had a chance to read it quickly. Go ahead.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Here it is:

That bill C-31 in clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 33 on page 3 with the following:

"10.1 (1) The Corporation must conduct an environmental assessment before entering, in the exercise of its powers under subsection 10 (1.1), into a transaction that is related to a project.

(2) The environmental assessment process shall include:

(a) environmental assessment;

(b) the design and implementation of a follow-up program.

(3) the Corporation shall establish an environmental assessment process that takes into account, among other factors,

(a) the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or other activities that have been or will be carried out;

(b) the significance of the effects referred to in paragraph (a);

(c) comments from the local communities;

(d) measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project;

(e) the purpose of the project;

(f) alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means;

(g) the need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up program in respect of the project;

(h) the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future; and

(i) the impact of the project on local communities, which must be in accordance with Canada's international human rights commitments;

(4) The Corporation shall prepare an environmental assessment report and submit it to the Minister for International Trade.

(5) The Corporation may use all available information in conducting the environmental assessment, but where the corporation is of the opinion that the information available is not adequate to enable it to take a course of action, it shall ensure that any studies and information that it considers necessary for that purpose are undertaken or collected.

(6) The Corporation shall take one of the following courses of action in respect of a project after taking into consideration the environmental assessment:

(a) subject to subparagraph (c)(iii) where, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the Corporation considers appropriate, the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, the Corporation may exercise any power or perform any duty or function that would permit the project to be carried out and shall ensure that any mitigation measures that the Corporation considers appropriate are implemented;

(b) where, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the Corporation considers appropriate, the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be justified in the circumstances, the Corporation shall not exercise any power or perform any duty or function conferred on it by or under any act of Parliament that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part; or

(c) the Corporation refers the project to the Minister of International Trade for a decision to authorize or not to authorize the project, where:

(i) it is not clear whether the project, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the Corporation considers appropriate, is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects,

(ii) the project, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the Corporation considers appropriate, is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effect and paragraph (b) does not apply, or

(iii) the concerns of the local communities warrant it.

10.2 (1) The Corporation shall disclose, 45 days before entering into any agreement, information on the projects in which it is participating, including:

(a) the name of the borrower;

(b) the name of the host country of the project;

(c) the environmental and social considerations and the concerns of the local communities; and

(d) the amount of financial support and its terms and conditions.

(2) No provision in the Privacy Act or the Access to information Act shall operate so as to limit or prevent the disclosure of the information referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d).”

As you can see, this is a much clearer framework that is not too restrictive, and as I said, it is based on the one used by the World Bank.

The Chair: May I ask you a question before giving the floor to other members?

In subclause 10.2(1), you say “The Corporation shall disclose, 45 days...”. That is mandatory, is it not? There is no discretion involved here, is there? With respect to the “...45 days before entering into any agreement...”, did you consult anyone to find out whether or not this is practical?

If I understand the EDC's activities, sometimes contracts have to be signed quite quickly. Thus, providing that this must all be done 45 days before entering into a contract could impose a condition on the Corporation that would not necessarily be applicable in certain circumstances. I would like to know what your—

• 1145

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Once there is a requirement to have an environmental review process, clearly it must be followed. Third parties must also be able to intervene, and therefore the process must be public.

The Chair: I see.

[English]

Does anyone have observations?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I was going to say “shall clause 9 carry”, but we're going to have to go through it now.

Mr. Svend Robinson: As I indicated earlier, in deference to the concerns that were raised about the timeliness of these amendments, I'm not going to proceed with the amendments to clause 9 that I have proposed, subject to a couple of questions to the representative from the department, or to Mr. O'Brien, but I suspect he would probably defer to our departmental representatives here.

To get clarification with respect to the possibility of amending paragraph (b) of proposed subsection 10.1(1), as that now reads, it states that there has to be a determination as to:

whether the project is likely to have adverse environmental effects despite the implementation of mitigation measures

and then it says as paragraph (b):

if such is the case, whether the Corporation is justified in entering into the transaction.

The amendments I brought before the committee for consideration would strengthen paragraph (b). If you go to the reference to lines 12 to 14, there are two amendments there. So if it's not likely to have adverse environmental impacts, I put forward two possible alternatives, Mr. Jensen. I'm not sure if that's clear. One is that if that's the case, the corporation shall not enter into the transaction, period. The second alternative is that if such is the case, the corporation shall not enter into the transaction unless there is demonstrable justification for doing so. Then there was alternative wording on the other one, but I'm not going to proceed with that.

I'm wondering whether you might be prepared, at the very least, to accept the wording that's proposed with respect to demonstrable justification, which just puts a slightly higher threshold on the corporation before dealing with a project that might have adverse environmental effect.

Mr. Martin Jensen: I certainly have no instructions or authority for the department to accept such an amendment. I should point out that in the government guidance to the corporation the notion of accounting for decisions taken where there may be adverse environmental effects is included. That is an important part of accountability, and the government would look for that in EDC's environmental procedures. But I certainly have no authority to accept that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

Perhaps then, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment, which again is the sixth page of the package of amendments, and it's a very short amendment.

The Chair: So that I understand, you're withdrawing all your other proposed amendments to clause 9, but you would like to put forward this one.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a couple of other brief amendments. Let's deal with this one now, Mr. Chairman. It substitutes the words:

if such is the case, that the Corporation shall not enter into the transaction unless there is demonstrable justification for doing so.

It's a slight strengthening of the provision, which now reads:

if such is the case, whether the Corporation is justified in entering into the transaction.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. O'Brien.

• 1150

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'd like some help from the officials. I've been in politics 20 years—not at this level—and the word that catches my attention is “demonstrable”. It seems to me that people could argue for all kinds of delaying tactics, hearings and all sorts of things. How do we interpret “demonstrable justification”? That is a word that I have seen to be very problematic at the municipal level of government. For that reason, I think it would encumber the bill unnecessarily, and I don't think it's something the government would support.

I wouldn't mind the officials' view on it, briefly.

Ms. Agnès Levesque: Actually, that was the question I wanted to ask. Who would this be demonstrated to?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Probably anybody and everybody who had any objection.

Ms. Agnès Levesque: It's a very difficult—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Who would the existing justification be demonstrated to?

Ms. Agnès Levesque: Presently—

Mr. Stan Keyes: To Parliament.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madame Levesque says, who would it be demonstrated to? Under the existing proposed paragraph 10.1(1)(b), the test now is whether the corporation is justified. I put it to Madame Levesque, justified to whom?

Ms. Agnès Levesque: It is the corporation that is making the decision, and it will be the corporation that will be analysing and weighing the factors. So the corporation determines whether or not it is justified.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Presumably the same threshold would apply.

I don't want to belabour the point, but—

The Chair: We don't want to get too technically legal here, but it seems to me, Mr. Robinson, you're adding “demonstrable”, which may add more to it, but demonstrative to whom clearly would be to a court, because the only way you could test whether a contract was ultra vires of the corporation by virtue of the act would be to a court, to challenge it. So it's going to be demonstrable to a court anyway. That's who it's going to be demonstrable to. So I would have thought it's already there. The court is always going to have an opportunity to rule on the legality of any act of anybody, as to whether or not it's in accordance with an act of Parliament. That's why I don't think it's worth that much of a debate—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I made the argument—

The Chair: —but that's only my personal opinion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have two other brief amendments.

The Chair: We tried to get you to withdraw all those amendments.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I've withdrawn a lot.

The Chair: You were so conciliatory earlier.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's just a change from “may” to “shall” in the introductory words of proposed subsection 10.1(2), which now reads:

The Board shall issue a directive respecting the determination referred to in subsection (1), which directive may

—do various things.

The Chair: Could you give us the reference number so we make sure we're all looking at the same one?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Actually, I'm sorry, upon reflection, there is one problem with it, so I'm not going to pursue that amendment.

The only other amendment I would propose is one that follows up on my questioning to Mr. Gillespie and the representatives of the corporation earlier today. I don't have a text here, but it's a straightforward amendment, to delete proposed subsection 10.1(3), which states:

The directive is not a statutory instrument for the purpose of the Statutory Instruments Act.

I would hope this committee could agree on this amendment. I realize that there are some policy differences on some issues, but by supporting this amendment, all this would do would be ensure that the directive the board issues is considered to be a statutory instrument, which would mean that Parliament would be able to review it.

I don't know how many members have been involved in any way in the parliamentary oversight committee on regulations and statutory instruments, but that committee has an opportunity to review statutory instruments. I haven't heard an argument as to why this directive, which is a very important one, shouldn't be considered a statutory instrument so that there would be an opportunity both for public consultation and for oversight by Parliament. I would hope that members of the committee would be prepared to accept that this should be considered a statutory instrument.

I don't know if Mr. Jensen has any comments.

The Chair: Colleagues, for clarity's sake, this is not an amendment that has been proposed in writing; it's one that Mr. Robinson is just proposing now from the floor.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's right.

The Chair: It deletes proposed subsection 10.1(3) on page 3 of the draft bill.

• 1155

You've heard the discussion with Mr. Gillespie about the desirability of it being a statutory instrument or not.

Mr. Robinson, did you have a question of the officials on that? You did go into this with Mr. Gillespie.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We heard it all.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think we heard it. Certainly, the representative of the corporation didn't indicate any particular reason as to why it should not be a statutory instrument.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Duncan, you have an observation.

Mr. John Duncan: I did ask a question of the witness from the West Coast Environmental Law Association on this clause yesterday. I would like to hear the officials talk to this amendment now, for my benefit. I would like to solicit their input.

The Chair: I don't know if you were here when Mr. Gillespie responded to the question.

Perhaps we could resume that for Mr. Duncan, and then we can call the vote.

Ms. Agnès Levesque: Maybe somebody else can summarize what Mr. Gillespie said, because I was not here when he spoke, but looking at the Statutory Instruments Act, that act has three purposes: legal review, transparency, and parliamentary scrutiny. Those three objectives will be achieved whether or not the directive is a statutory instrument.

There are policy reasons that have been invoked as to why the directive should not be a statutory instrument: for reasons of flexibility, and for compatibility with international obligations and the international market.

So from a legal perspective, with respect to legal review, the directive will be reviewed by EDC counsel, and if they need to, by outside experts. As for transparency, EDC has mentioned that the policy will be disclosed and that consultations will be ongoing with the interested groups.

Also, generally when we're talking about a statutory instrument, it is an instrument that will have a very broad effect on a large number of the population. Here, the directive is applied to a very small group that is informed at the outset. As soon as they make a financial request, they will be informed of the policy of the directive they have to comply with.

Finally, with respect to parliamentary scrutiny, all the EDC decisions can be reviewed by parliamentary committees. The policy can be reviewed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Also, other commercial corporations have been granted exemptions from the Statutory Instruments Act.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, and then Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Ms. Levesque seems to be confusing the directive with a determination under the directive. She indicated that the directive would only affect a small group of people in a particular transaction.

That's not the case. The directive is the overall guideline that the corporation is required to operate under on environmental assessments. There are specific determinations under the framework of that directive. But she's incorrect in advising the committee that it only applies to a particular group.

A directive is issued that has overall policy framework. So I don't know what that argument is about on individual corporations. That's a determination under the directive.

Ms. Agnès Levesque: The interested groups—the industry, the NGOs—are fully aware of the policy, the framework the corporation has established and is working on and that it will respect. It's a very narrow group of the population that asks for export financing, that is interested in the actual application of the directive.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Again, it's not just those who get export financing that are interested in the environmental impact of projects that are financed by the EDC. The general public is very interested—in the Three Gorges dam project, for example. It's not just those who are getting financing that are interested in the role of the EDC with respect to that; it's environmental groups, and the general public as well.

• 1200

Ms. Agnès Levesque: From what I understand, the EDC is disclosing the policy. It's going to be on their website, if it's not already there, and there are going to be ongoing consultations with those groups. So the transparency objective of the Statutory Instruments Act is also achieved in a different manner, giving the flexibility the corporation needs.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We've gone around this point a thousand times, Mr. Chairman. Can we move to the question, please?

The Chair: I'm aware of that, and I think everybody now understands.

Mr. Duncan, you're satisfied with the explanation you got? You were the one who opened this.

Mr. John Duncan: I understand the explanation I got. I don't know that—

The Chair: Will you accept it?

Mr. John Duncan: I don't know if I'd want to use that word.

I'm assuming you're going to go for a vote. If you are, I'll just call for a recorded vote on this.

The Chair: Okay. I don't think there's any need for any other observation with regard to that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: It is never so simple. I would take the time, Mr. Chairman, to say I agree with Mr. Keyes. I know what was done was within the rules, as Mr. Paquette said. I think we ought to look at revising the rules. But when you walk in something, even on a voice basis, and it seems pretty simple, and even though we may agree with the spirit of it, it has a lot of other potential ramifications. I think, in fairness, we don't want to be tampering with this legislation on that basis.

The Chair: I agree with that. I'm advised, with the present state of our rules, it's within the rules to propose it. So the best thing is to debate it. However, Mr. Duncan, is going to call for a recorded vote, so I'll ask the clerk to do that.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8, yeas 4)

The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: On division, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Clause 9 agreed to on division)

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11)

The Chair: There's an amendment.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Very quickly, this is an amendment to provide that the Auditor can audit the directives every two years, rather than every five years.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, the question is, should we go from five, as in the bill, to two, as proposed by Mr. Paquette. Any discussion?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Other than to note, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has already been proactive in that regard, and a proactive minister doesn't need legislation.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: May the record note that a former minister said “Hear, hear” to that comment.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: On division.

The Chair: On division.

[English]

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

(On clause 12)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on clause 12.

The Chair: It was ruled out of order.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There's one amendment to clause 12 that I'll be proceeding with. It's the amendment that states “pages 4 and 5”.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Very briefly, give us the reference number, Svend, in the top left-hand corner.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's reference 38A, and it's just two lines: that Bill C-31, in clause 12, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 46 on page 4 and lines 1 to 12 on page 5.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment would be to delete the references to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to ensure that in fact there is, to the extent possible, oversight under the Environmental Assessment Act of the operations of EDC.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's been discussed ad nauseam, Mr. Chair. I move for question.

(Amendment negatived)

• 1205

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

The Chair: There are no other amendments proposed, so I am going to ask, colleagues, if clauses 13 to 32 carry.

(Clauses 13 to 32 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill without amendment to the House?

An hon. member: No!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to thank everybody for their cooperation. It looked awfully complicated when we started, but in an hour and some we managed to work our way through the issues, perhaps because we were willing to listen to one another.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We did want a recorded vote on the final vote on whether or not we report the bill.

The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote on whether or not to report the bill to the House.

Shall the bill carry?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chair: Now we have to turn quickly to future business, colleagues. That will be in camera.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]