Debates of May 27th, 2010

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, the government said that it created the victims' ombudsman, so I would suggest that it listen to him.

The cost of ending the two-for-one sentencing credit will be $2 billion, and security for the summits will be $1 billion. I think we can come up with $5 million for advocacy centres for child victims of sexual abuse.

I want to talk about crime prevention, something the government has cut. I will quote Mr. Sullivan again. He said, “preventing crime is the best victim protection you can have”.

The facts are clear: 70% of offenders never finished high school; 80% suffer from mental illness or addiction; and two out of three youth entering our justice system have a mental health issue.

Clearly, crime prevention means investing in education. It means getting tough on poverty and funding mental health and addictions treatment. It means having programs in our communities to keep kids away from gangs.

I emphasize, as Mr. Sullivan testified, that victims want to know that offenders are receiving treatment and rehabilitation in prison so that they never hurt anyone again.

Does the government agree with Mr. Sullivan that crime prevention is the best victim protection? If so, will it commit to making serious investments in crime prevention and rehabilitation?

Daniel Petit Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague's comments.

With the funds announced in Budget 2010, this government has almost doubled the federal funding available to victims since our arrival in government. As an example, the funding for victims at the Department of Justice in 2005 was $5 million. In 2010, the federal funds for grants and contributions to support victims and families, provincial-territorial service providers and NGO advocates is $9.05 million each and every year. That is progress!

With regard to the assertions of the ombudsman, there should be no doubt that the government remains committed to this function. Mr. Sullivan will confirm himself that he was honoured to be the first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. An announcement as to the next ombudsman will be made in due course.

Todd Russell Labrador, NL

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, I raised a question in the House concerning the strike in Voisey's Bay in Labrador. There are also ongoing strikes in communities such as Sudbury and Port Colborne.

They have been on strike now for nearly 10 months. They are nearly one year out of work. I would ask members of the House how they would feel if they had limited income and very little support for 10 months. It would be a difficult time. Families are suffering. Communities are suffering. I know of individuals who are losing their homes or who are in danger of the breakup of their relationships. Strikes, by their nature, when they are prolonged, have a very detrimental effect on individuals, families, and communities.

While these people are on strike, the company in question, Vale Inco, which I understand is now known as Vale--it has taken “Inco” out of its title altogether--has been bringing in scab labour to fill these positions. With scab labour in place, we have to ask the government what the bargaining power of a union is for these workers.

Today I had the opportunity to attend a rally with the United Steelworkers and some of its locals. They are a group of determined individuals who are fighting for their equality, for some fairness, and for their rights as workers, which are basic human rights.

Every time we ask the government what it has done, what steps it is taking to defend Canada's interests and the interests of our workers, it hides behind a flawed Investment Canada Act, and it hides behind the issue of provincial jurisdiction.

I ask the government what message it can send to all those workers about one concrete step, one thing the federal government has done, to defend national interests, to protect our natural resources so that they are exploited for the benefit of the people of Canada, and to protect workers' rights? What steps has it taken to ensure that this strike ends and that there will be a just settlement for the workers at all these locations? I particularly think about my workers back home in Labrador and those associated with the mine in Voisey's Bay.

I ask the hon. member that question.

Mike Lake Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating that foreign investment plays a very important role in the Canadian economy. Foreign investors bring capital, knowledge, capabilities, technology, and other resources which can increase the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian firms. Their investments help businesses to expand and create jobs for Canadians.

It is important to note that investment flows both into and out of Canada. In the past several years Canadian firms have invested more abroad than foreign firms have invested in Canada. According to Stats Canada, foreign investments into Canada reached $549 billion in 2009, while Canadian investments abroad reached $593 billion.

In order to ensure that Canadian firms have access to investment opportunities abroad, it is important for Canada to maintain an investment climate which encourages the free flow of investment in both directions. Recognizing the importance of investment flows into the country, Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment while protecting its interests. This includes the Investment Canada Act, which provides the Minister of Industry with the power to review significant foreign investment proposals.

The review threshold for WTO members is currently $299 million in book value of the assets of the Canadian business. Where a proposed investment is subject to review under the act, the investor cannot implement the investment without the approval of the minister responsible for the act.

The Minister of Industry approves an application only where he is satisfied that the transaction is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. In making his determination, the minister must consider the factors listed in section 20 of the act.

These factors include: the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

As a part of the review process, the investment review division of Industry Canada consults with federal government departments with policy responsibility for the industrial sector involved, with the Competition Bureau, and with all provinces in which the Canadian business has substantial activities or assets.

In October 2006, the Minister of Industry at the time approved Vale's application for review of its acquisition of Inco Limited because he was satisfied that the investment was likely to be of net benefit to Canada.

The original question put forward by the member asks whether the government will stand up and tell Vale to get back to the table, negotiate in good faith, and demonstrate that Vale's investment truly represents a net benefit to Canada.

The government is surely disappointed at the lack of progress in resolving this strike at Vale; however, as has been mentioned several times in this House and as the hon. member mentioned himself, the strike is a labour dispute between Vale and its union. Labour relations are governed by a well-established legislative framework which Vale and the union must respect.

The provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador are responsible for the administration of the legislation which governs labour relations in their respective provinces.

I want to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address my colleagues in this House. We encourage both sides to sit down together and negotiate a settlement.

Todd Russell Labrador, NL

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. parliamentary secretary must have been quite good at rote because I hear this same answer every single time.

I would say to him that we welcome foreign investment. We always have. However, when we welcome foreign investment, it must be on Canada's terms, and it must satisfy the interests of our country and the interests of our workers.

I say to the member that 3,000 people in Sudbury, hundreds in Port Colborne, and hundreds in Labrador are on strike, some now for nearly a year. How is that a net benefit to Canada? How does the government go about holding a company like Vale to account when it does not comply with the Investment Canada Act?

Can the member give us one specific concrete example of what the federal government has done to try to end these strikes, particularly in Labrador and in northern Ontario?

Mike Lake Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member asked in the first part and in the second part what the government has done for the workers at Vale. We have created an economic climate in this country that has resulted in the net job creation of 285,000 new jobs. That has made Canada the envy of the industrialized world.

That means that, once the company and the union are able to work together and once they have been able to resolve this dispute, the company will be operating in the strongest economic climate in the entire world. That, of course, will not only be to the benefit of the company but it will be to the great benefit of the workers at Vale as well.

The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, all of the Liberal members will simply be asking questions and making no speeches. I have very short questions on two or three different issues. I will put them without any prefaces to make things simpler.

Which senior officials from DND, if any, received the 2006 Afghan human rights report, written by embassy officials in Kabul and delivered in either December 2006 or January 2007, which repeatedly used the word “torture” to describe the treatment of Afghan detainees?

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, these reports, as all members would know, are received by the department. They would certainly have been seen by the deputy minister and those within the Chief of the Defence Staff's immediate circle. These are reports that reference, in general terms, the situation inside Afghan prisons. They do not, however, refer in any way specifically to Canadian-transferred prisoners.

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, who from DND attended the March 2007 inter-agency meeting attended in person by Richard Colvin, where he says a CEFCOM note taker stopped taking notes with regard to Afghan detainees? Was he or she ordered to do so, and by whom?

Peter MacKay Central Nova, NS

Mr. Chair, I was not the Minister of National Defence during that particular time and I was certainly not present at that meeting. I would not be able to say who stopped taking notes or how that particular scenario unfolded.

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, in cases where the minister is unable to give me the information, I would ask that he look for that information, and if he finds it, forward it to me at his earliest convenience.

Richard Colvin mentions that according to good sources, at least three Canadian-transferred detainees were sent to NDS black sites.

Will the government confirm this? How often did Canada transfer detainees to these sites, where human rights monitors are not permitted?