House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-10.

Topics

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I ask all members to address their comments to the Chair.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

How can you justify refusing to split up this bill to make it possible for a father to vote in favour of this without having to vote against other principles?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member is the father of three children and that he cares about these types of bills.

It is a methodology of opposition members to find that one little area that they support and say that we should just separate that one.

This bill was brought forward. I can guarantee that we will move forward on this quickly. All the nine bills that are in Bill C-10 are bills that we campaigned on. They are bills that the voters across this country recognized our party as standing strong for.

I would encourage members to support the entire bill, a good bill that would make our streets and communities safer.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.

I have a letter here that was written to the Prime Minister by Jane Wright in Providence Bay. She states:

There are adequate measures presently in place to keep in prison the few who are truly dangerous. Your crime bill will further disadvantage young aboriginals and the mentally ill....

Does the member think that we should be stocking our prisons with aboriginals and the mentally ill as opposed to providing rehabilitative and proper services for them?

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I think our prisons should be full of those who have committed crimes against our society and who have been found guilty in a court of law. I think our prisons should be a place where we can try to rehabilitate people, but we should hold them, incarcerate them and tell them that the penalty for crime is prison in some cases.

The mandatory minimums that we are bringing forward, generally speaking, are on indictable offences where the Canadian public has said that they do not want them doing house arrest and that they do not believe those people should be living out their time in their homes while their victims are sometimes completely victimized.

We realize that there is a high percentage of aboriginals in our penitentiaries, and, yes, that must be addressed as well, but in many case there are many aboriginal victims who are standing right there while the offender is the locked in prison.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the member spoke on one aspect of Bill C-10. Other members will take another aspect of Bill C-10.

The point is that the government has taken a bunch of bills that should have been, in essence, separate bills and tied them into an omnibus bill.

The member made reference to the fact that this was an election issue. The government could probably take 30 or 40 election issues and say that now that it has a majority, that it has the most seats, it wants all of those bills to be included in an omnibus bill.

The concern, in part, that we have is—

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I would like to give the hon. member for Crowfoot the opportunity to respond. He has 30 seconds.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, 10 or 11 years ago when I was elected, I was actually surprised. During the election campaign, the Liberals would talk about law and order but then, as soon as soon as they were elected, we would never see any law and order bills coming forward in this House.

I would tell the fairly new member over there that there have been over 200 speeches made in this place in debate dealing with different aspects of this bill. The Liberals tried to stall it here in the House. They tried to stall in the committees. They tried to stall it in the Senate.

Now the member is saying that if they are given a little more time for debate—

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has the floor, but I will have to interrupt him.

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

NDP

François Lapointe NDP Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a huge mistake that could potentially cost the Canadian treasury $5 billion. The repressive measures that were taken throughout the United States did not help lower the crime rate. In some cases, there was even an increase in serious crimes. The government wants to invest $5 billion of public funds in a solution that will worsen the problem. And that does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars that the provinces will have to spend to expand prisons and meet the demand that will be created, for no good reason, by the current government.

The current government is boasting that it has a majority, but it is forgetting to keep in mind that approximately six out of ten Canadians did not vote for extreme right-wing values, such as being tough on crime. So the government wants to drop $5 billion without even having a clear majority that agrees with the basic principle.

I want to come back to the so-called contempt for victims the bleeding hearts on the left here have, according to our Conservative friends across the way. There is a dynamic that escapes me. They are applying tough on crime policies, but there is ample evidence over a number of decades from a number of places in North America that such policies do not reduce crime. It does not work. There may even be an increase. I want to know how increasing the number of victims is a form of respect for victims.

Can we tell the woman who, statistically speaking, will be abused—and would not have been with a policy that reduced the crime rate—that she can take comfort in the fact that the person who abused her will spend an extra six months in prison thanks to the bill the Conservative government passed two years beforehand? Is that how we show respect for victims, by creating the necessary conditions to produce more victims in the coming decades?

We are entering a spiral of crime. This reminds me of A Clockwork Orange, a movie that was extremely popular a very long time ago, in which—

Safe Streets and Communities ActGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. He can continue his comments when we resume this debate.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

7 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be following up on a question that I raised in the House about the Keystone XL pipeline. First I would like to say that the Keystone pipeline is part of a massive plan to renew North America's oil and gas infrastructure. It will allow for a drastic expansion of oil sands production.

Under this plan, oil from the oil sands would be destined for export markets. Crude oil would be sent to the United States, where it would be refined. The refined oil would then be shipped back to us. That is illogical. This is not a viable energy security plan. The Keystone XL pipeline project is the third phase of a $13 billion project to export western Canada's bitumen to American refineries.

It is estimated that 900,000 barrels of raw bitumen will be exported to the United States each day. An estimated 40,500 potential direct and indirect jobs will be lost because of this government's negligence. The president of the Alberta Federation of Labour believes that the Keystone XL pipeline project will kill far more jobs than it will create.

The pipeline projects to the United States have already slowed down new bitumen upgrading projects in Canada. According to a study by the Alberta Federation of Labour, nine bitumen upgrading projects have been postponed or delayed. While the Americans will benefit from well-paying refinery jobs, all Canadians will get is the environmental costs of oil sands development. In addition to taking potential upgrading and refining jobs away from Canadians, the pipeline project will also destroy the environment.

Just last year, the Transportation Safety Board recorded over 100 leaks in Canadian pipelines, including 23 leaks in the first section of the Keystone project. In addition, the rights of aboriginal people have been violated because they were not properly consulted. Last week, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said, and I quote: “...the Keystone XL pipeline will provide a substantial economic benefit to both Canada and the United States.”

However, since this project is being developed at the expense of workers, our environment, future generations and the rights of aboriginal people, how can the parliamentary secretary claim that the Keystone project will provide significant benefits to Canada?

The government did not give us all the facts and is unable to justify the so-called benefits of the Keystone pipeline. This project does not make any sense in terms of energy security, the environment or the economy. I would like to know why the government chose a quick profit and why it is protecting the interests of the large oil companies rather than developing a viable energy strategy that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

7 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board

Madam Speaker, our government is doing what Canadians asked us to do on May 2, and that is to concentrate on what matters to them, which are jobs and economic growth.

The oil sands is a proven strategic resource for Canada. It is creating jobs and economic opportunity for Canadians in all provinces and regions across this country. As I did a couple of times yesterday, I want to go over how many jobs are being created because the NDP is not being straightforward on this issue. Right now, the oil sands is responsible for 130,000 direct jobs for Canadians. We know as well that it currently contributes to 390,000 jobs across Canada, direct and induced jobs, and over the next 25 years the oil sands development is anticipated to support an estimated 480,000 jobs across Canada.

I want to talk about the Keystone pipeline. If the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, because of the additional oil sands product that it will carry, it is estimated that over 600,000 good jobs for Canadians will be created. The NDP is saying no to 600,000 jobs for Canadians. It can hardly pretend that it is interested in Canadians and in the job situation.

That does not come as a surprise. The NDP's former environment critic called for a moratorium on oil sands development that would kill thousands of Canadian jobs and destroy the progress our government has made in terms of Canada's economic recovery. The Keystone XL pipeline project will contribute to both job creation and energy security for Canada.

Unlike the NDP, which is clearly only too happy to sacrifice good Canadian jobs and jeopardize Canada's economic recovery for its own political game and gain, our government will continue to promote Canada and the oil sands as a stable and secure, and ethical source of energy for the world. We will not apologize for standing up for Canada.

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government seems incapable of understanding that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, sustainable development is the way of the future. We believe that instead of approving a pipeline that will destroy everything in its path, cost us 40,500 jobs, and considerably increase our greenhouse gas emissions, the government should stop this project.

The NDP is proposing a transition plan for a green economy, which will create good jobs and ensure our energy security. Until then, the burden of proof rests with the government. It must prove that the massive export of crude oil is a good thing for Canada. We just do not believe it.

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, if the NDP has such a plan, Canadians have certainly never heard of it.

We do believe that we can balance economic development and environmental protection. We are focused, as I said, on what matters to Canadians, which is job growth and economic growth as well.

We know the resource sector is key to Canada's economic growth. As I said, it employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country.

We also know the importance of getting the environmental challenges right. That is why we have invested in new technology that will create both jobs and a cleaner environment. That is why we are working with the provinces to ensure that our resources are developed in a responsible manner.

I just heard the member, in her hyperbole, say that this pipeline was going to destroy everything in its passage. That is a ridiculous thing to say. That is why the NDP should stop listening to the extremist environmentalists who want to shut down the development of the oil sands and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We are not going to let that happen. We are going to work with Canadians.

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I raised in June with regard to the number of children living in poverty in Canada. I was quoting numbers of over 100,000 children in British Columbia, but I want to put this into a national context.

In an article in The Vancouver Sun on September 26, Paul Kershaw indicated a number of grim statistics. He says:

Canada allocates just 0.34 per cent of GDP to child care and kindergarten services for children under age six (2008). This is just over half of the United Kingdom and New Zealand; and barely one-third of what is allocated in France, Sweden and Denmark.

He also said:

Canada ranks among the industrialized countries with the highest rates of child poverty. Child poverty in Canada is three to five times higher than the countries that make it a real priority to eliminate poverty among the generation raising young kids.

He concludes by saying:

On the other hand, history books make clear Canadians have been reticent to build new social policy since the 1970s.

This reticence is especially evident in our slow national response to the fact that the generation raising young kids today is the first in a long time to struggle with a dramatically lower standard of living than their parents.

That highlights the fact that when we are talking about child poverty, we are talking about children and families.

I want to give a perspective on both coasts. In New Brunswick on September 27, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released some numbers that we often hear about the economy. It released numbers saying that the cost of poverty for the Province of New Brunswick is $2 billion.

These calculations are based on research that consistently links poverty to poorer health prospects, lower literacy, more crime, poor school performance for children and greater stress for everyone living in poverty. There is not only a cost to the family, but there is a cost to the community, the province and the country in not dealing with poverty.

In British Columbia, B.C. Campaign 2000 released the 2010 child poverty report card, and it had some very grim statistics. In fact, it said that the 2008 figure before tax followed six consecutive years when British Columbia had the worst child poverty record of any province in Canada. Campaign 2000 equated it to about 121,000 children, which is more than the total populations of Campbell River, Mission, Squamish and Vernon combined. We have more children living in poverty in British Columbia than the combination of a number of cities in our province.

The report goes on to say that it is worse for children under the age of six, who had a poverty rate of 19.6% in 2008. Almost 20% of British Columbia children under the age of six are living in poverty.

The 2010 child poverty report card also reminds us that Canada signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 and that the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000, yet the report goes on to say that one of every seven children in B.C. still lives in poverty despite years of unprecedented economic prosperity.

In B.C. up to 2008, we have allowed income inequality to increase.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have higher than average welfare rates in general, and although some progress has been made, the report says that the Nanaimo-Ladysmith School District still ranks among the highest in the province in terms of poverty-stricken students. In case we think we are just talking about numbers, it goes on to say that these children are doing without food. When kids leave on Friday, they come back on Monday and have barely eaten all weekend.

When will the government give us a concrete plan on lifting children and families out of poverty?

7:10 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has given me this opportunity to explain the progress our government has made.

While Canada is emerging from one of the most fragile economic times we have seen since the Great Depression, Canada's economic recovery is leading the G7 countries.

The targeted measures in the first phase of our economic action plan have contributed to creating the favourable conditions for this recovery, but that is not to say that the economic problems other countries are facing will not have repercussions on our own country.

The recovery remains fragile.

The best protection against poverty is a strong economy and a strong labour market. That is why jobs and the economy will continue to be our first priority. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada has created 600,000 net new jobs since the height of the economic downturn and 300,000 jobs are protected through work-sharing agreements.

Despite the opinion expressed by my hon. colleague, no one here is unaware of the reality of poverty. Compassion has nothing to do with political allegiances. We all want the best for our fellow Canadians.

We are investing in programs to promote growth and job creation, programs like the one time hiring credit for small businesses and programs for Canadian workers who have been laid off, like the targeted initiative for older workers, which has helped close to 16,000 people in the most vulnerable communities.

We are investing in programs for Canadian families. We provide over $14 billion per year in benefits to families with children.

Our government is investing in programs for our seniors who have worked hard to build our country. Budget 2011 increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors with little or no income. This will be a benefit for more than 680,000 seniors.

We are investing in programs for caregivers. We estimated that more than 500,000 caregivers will benefit from the family caregiver tax credit.

We are investing in programs for the working poor. We have provided over $1 billion per year in the working income tax benefit, which helps to ensure low income families are finally better off when they have a job.

We are investing in programs that promote education and skills training because that is the key to economic independence and prosperity for everyone.

We have also invested in apprenticeships and the trades. As of today, we have issued more than 280,000 apprenticeship grants for college and university students through the Canada student loans and grants program and the adults for low literacy who want to acquire the essential skills they need to improve their future prospects.

I want to stress that the risks to our financial stability are too great for us to maintain the status quo. We are looking for ways to harmonize these investments with a balanced budget, without imposing a tax hike on hard-working Canadians.

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I would just remind the hon. member that members must not mention the name of sitting members of the House.

The hon. member for Nanaimo--Cowichan.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, despite the list of programs that the member cites, the reality is that thousands of children and their families are still living in poverty in this country.

The 2010 child poverty report card stated that child poverty was known to be economically and socially unsustainable and that we either shared the collective responsibility to prevent and eliminate child and family poverty or we would face the rising costs in health care services, criminal justice and education, along with lost productivity and human potential.

The government continues to talk about jobs. What we are talking about is the loss of future workers because they simply are living in poverty and do not have access to education and other services that they need.

In June, I tabled Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada. The bill was the result of consultations with a wide variety of anti-poverty activists, community members and government officials. I would ask the member if she and her government are prepared to support Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada?

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Madam Speaker, Canadians gave us a clear, strong mandate. They want us to respect the money they make and the money we receive in taxes, and they want us to spend it very wisely.

The best way to fight poverty is to get Canadians working. Our government is doing just that. We have created 600,000 new jobs since July 2009.

Our government is reaching out to help families across the country, especially those in need. That is one of the reasons that we introduced the universal child care benefit and we increased the national child benefit.

Those are all initiatives aimed to help low income families get over the welfare wall, just like the WITB that we introduced and then increased.

Every action we have taken has been to help Canadians and their families become independent and help them contribute to their economy and their community.

Sadly, the NDP voted against every one of those initiatives to help vulnerable families.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:17 p.m.)