House of Commons Hansard #164 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cfia.

Topics

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

That is not a point of order. The member is speaking in debate and is certainly speaking about the matter before the House.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has one minute remaining.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that Leo Baskatawang marched to highlight indigenous rights and the Indian Act. I will not have time to do talk about all of the things he did, but he brought to the fore the point that most indigenous leaders agree that it is essential that legislation written by indigenous people for indigenous people is the way to go. There was a consensus on that. The government may choose to disregard it, but the reality is that if it plans to overhaul the Indian Act and change the provisions for wills, which could actually download more responsibilities onto the provinces, it needs to involve the people who would be directly affected by it. It cannot do it unilaterally as it is proposing to do.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight is about a very serious matter. In January, the Prime Minister stated:

Our government has no grand scheme to repeal or to unilaterally rewrite the Indian Act: After 136 years, that tree has deep roots; blowing up the stump would just leave a big hole. However, there are ways, creative ways, collaborative ways, ways that involve consultation between our government, the provinces and First Nations leadership and communities, ways that provide options within the act, or outside of it, for practical, incremental and real change.

At that same meeting the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, said this with respect to the Indian Act:

Like a rock that sits in the middle of the road, a boulder that blocks the path of collaboration, remains

—as we have been saying here—

the Indian Act, along with the age-old structures and policies that administer it and steadfastly resist change.

I am sorry that we have to raise this here tonight because it means that the government has not taken this solemn promise of the Prime Minister seriously. He said in January that the government would not repeal or unilaterally rewrite the Indian Act and indicated that any future changes would be developed in consultation with the government, the provinces and first nations communities. I am afraid that a backbencher's private member's bill is not an appropriate consultation for this very serious relationship with first nations in this country.

This kind of change must be undertaken by the Prime Minister in a government-to-government way. Now we have a member of Parliament moving legislation to unilaterally change the Indian Act with no prior consultation.

All private member's bills should include consultation before they are tabled, and when they are drafted and afterwards. None of this happened, which extremely egregious when dealing with an issue concerning first nations.

If the member had consulted, he would have heard loudly—

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

You used the first nations for your own benefit.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. I would ask all hon. members who do not have the floor and wish to remain in the chamber to control themselves. If they cannot control themselves, maybe they should leave the chamber.

The hon. member for St. Paul's has the floor. I would ask that all hon. members listen to what she has to say.

The hon. member for St. Paul's.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the member had consulted, he would have heard very loudly that first nations were not finding this appropriate. They want a formal discussion with the Prime Minister and the cabinet as to how to change the Indian Act. Even for the Kelowna accord, the Prime Minister and the cabinet met with first nations leadership and Inuit and Métis for 18 months before that accord was tabled.

First nations groups have clearly stated that the current bill is paternalistic and was not the subject of consultations.

If he had consulted, he would have been persuaded, I believe, to put his energies into something else that would have improved the quality of life of Canadians, especially first nations, if that was his choosing. Tinkering with the bill is not appropriate.

Let me be clear. The Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies that have denied first nations their rights and a fair share in resources, fostered mistrust and created systemic barriers to the self-determination and success of first nations.

However, the elimination of these barriers requires the government to initiate a formal process of direct engagement with first nations, on a nation-to-nation basis, which focuses on replacing the Indian Act with new agreements. These agreements must be based on the constitutional treaty and inherent rights of all first nations, the historical and fiduciary responsibility of the Crown to first nations.

The standards established in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples include the principle of free, prior and informed consent, respect, recognition, reconciliation and support for first nations, a partnership and mutual accountability for the Crown and first nations and the stability and safety of first nations.

The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River spoke at a Federation of Saskatchewan Nations Assembly this summer, but did not even allow questions or seek input from the assembled leaders. This would have been an ideal time for him to consult and hopefully listen to what the people thought.

If the member had done even a basic consultation, he would understand that the issues he is dealing with in this bill are not what first nations leadership is calling for across the country.

These leaders are demanding the adoption of a process that would go beyond the Indian Act, a process rooted in nation-to-nation relationships and based on consultations and collaboration that respect historic and legal rights, a process that would require the federal government to respect its historic and fiduciary responsibilities towards the first nations.

The member has seriously missed the mark with this private member's bill, and I was extraordinarily surprised, like my colleague from the New Democratic party, today in question period to hear that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development agreed. For him to say that the Conservatives will support the bill in principle and hope to see it pass into law is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised in January to the assembled leadership of the first nations.

I encourage the member to read carefully the motion put forward by the leader of our party, the member for Toronto Centre, whose motion will be debated on Monday. It puts in place a proper formal process to work with first nations to actually make this egregious wrong right. It says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Indian Act is the embodiment of failed colonial and paternalistic policies which have denied First Nations their rights, fair share in resources; fostered mistrust and created systemic barriers to the self-determination and success of First Nations, and that elimination of these barriers requires the government to initiate a formal process of direct engagement with First Nations within three months of passage of this motion, on a nation-to-nation basis, which focuses on replacing the Indian Act with new agreements based on: (a) the constitutional, treaty, and inherent rights of all First Nations; (b) the historical and fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown to First Nations; (c) the standards established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; (d) respect, recognition, reconciliation and support for First Nations; (e) partnership and mutual accountability between the Crown and First Nations; and (f) stability and safety of First Nations; and that this process be completed within two years before reporting with a series of concrete deliverables for the government to act upon.

This has to be a step toward self-government. This is a process that has to be taken at the highest level of our government and its cabinet with the leaders of first nations and must be developed bottom up. This is about self-government. It is about allowing first nations to develop the process and then develop the concrete deliverables to which they will ask the Government of Canada to agree.

I am pleased the member presenting the bill has decided to be quiet now. The way the Conservatives heckled the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was completely disrespectful. This is a very serious issue. We on this side of the House take it very seriously. I hope the member will be here for the debate on Monday night as a formal process will be described. I hope they will support the member for Toronto Centre's motion.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to speak in support of this private member's bill brought forward by my friend and colleague from the Conservative Party.

The member who brought this forward is the right person to bring it forward. So far in this debate, he is the only one who has ever lived under the Indian Act. I and my colleagues from the other parties who have spoken do not know the life that is lived under the Indian Act like that member.

In fact, I did not agree with much that my friend from Nanaimo—Cowichan said in her speech today, but one quote she did give, which I fully agree with, was, “A bill wrote by indigenous people for indigenous people is the way to go”. That is exactly what we have happening in the House tonight. We have a bill that has been written by a person who has lived under this act, a bill that would rectify some of the most egregious portions of that act.

My colleague just recently suggested that my friend and colleague who brought the bill forward should be silent. I would suggest it is no longer appropriate for my friend to be silent. He has worked to become elected to the House of Commons. He has overcome the travesty that is this act and overcome past injustices to reach the House. He has every right to bring forward a private member's bill and to be heard in the House. I will defend every member's right to do the same thing, to bring legislation forward to change other legislation. I will continue to advocate for that right for my colleague.

Today we have before us this legislation. At the core of this proposed legislation is the acknowledgement that the Indian Act is holding first nations back from achieving their whole social and economic potential.

Bill C-428 is the Indian Act amendment and replacement act. It proposes a series of amendments to the Indian Act that will lead to healthier, more self-sufficient first nations across the country.

At the same time, the bill recognizes the change that must be made in a systematic and thoughtful manner that provides first nations with the tools and the time that they need to eventually transition completely out of the Indian Act. That is consistent with the government's approach, providing first nations with practical, incremental and real alternatives to the Indian Act.

I quote the Prime Minister's speech at the historical First Nations Gathering last January when he said:

The Indian Act cannot be replaced overnight, but through the use of existing tools and the development of new mechanisms, both parties can create the conditions to enable sustainable and successful First Nations.

The bill proposes concrete action that will provide greater autonomy for first nations, lessen the role of the ministerial involvement in the day-to-day lives of first nation citizens and give back the responsibility for several key areas, such as bylaw-making powers and the administration of wills and estates, to first nations where it rightfully belongs.

As my colleague as so appropriately described, quite simply, the bill proposes to do a number of things. First, it will require the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to report annually to a parliamentary committee on the action taken in partnership with first nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act. Second, it will remove the minister's role in the administration of wills and estates and the approval in voiding wills. Third, it will remove the minister's bylaw disallowance powers. Fourth, it will remove many of the outdated and archaic provisions of the act. Finally, it will repeal all references to residential schools and the removal of the outdated schools-related provisions.

These changes are consistent with the direction that our government has taken over the last six years. It is focused on bringing forward initiatives that will unlock the economic development potential by removing certain barriers to first nation governance that currently exist under the Indian Act.

Ultimately, this would lead to the development of strong, accountable and prosperous first nation communities, where first nation citizens would have access to the same rights as other Canadians.

The proposed amendment to repeal all provisions relating to residential schools is particularly symbolic and important for first nations people.

On June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada, in this House, made an impassioned and heartfelt apology to the first nations people of Canada for the treatment of children in residential schools, a sad and shameful chapter of our nation's history. Following this momentous apology, the government also announced its intent to repeal these sections of the Indian Act that allowed for the establishment of Indian residential schools and the removal of children from their homes and communities.

I believe, by removing this antiquated language and references to residential schools, we could take another step further down the path toward healing.

The bill would contribute to the larger effort underway to create these tools and mechanisms.

The government is proud to support this private member's bill. I urge my hon. colleagues from the other side to reconsider their position, to speak to first nations people within their own communities, as I have, as my colleagues have who have heard the devastating stories and the hope they find in this bill.

The government looks forward to studying this bill in committee, hearing from witnesses and always exploring opportunities to improve the bill, as may be required.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

NDP

Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, my speech in this House is consistent with my previously expressed positions on the Conservatives’ thinly veiled attempts to offload the Canadian government's responsibility toward the First Nations communities. When I use the term responsibility, I am referring to its social responsibility, but there is also an economic responsibility, one that is easily quantifiable.

Last year, I met the Toronto Six Nations. At the time I was meeting with them, they were demanding that the Canadian government pay a claim amounting to several billion dollars. In some ways, it is quantifiable.

My focus will be on creep in the spirit of the legislation rather than the actual letter of the amendments and modifications to the Indian Act being considered here.

My experience in this House, over the past year and a half, and the countless sessions of the aboriginal affairs committee, make it possible for me to say today that, all too often, the Conservatives' legislative initiatives and actions are meant to shift the burden and enable them to shirk their obligations toward the first nations peoples and communities throughout the country, to distance themselves from the fiduciary burden that the Canadian government has to the first nations.

I would not be able to comment on whether past governments have shown the same tendency, but this is a tendency that I have observed to date. They are trying to distance themselves and take a step back from the first nations.

Now I have some very bad news for them: these matters are entrenched in the Constitution and they are not going to be able to distance themselves and dissociate themselves from their obligations merely by passing a private member’s bill.

There is no doubt that the numerous international reports exposing the disparities in the government's treatment of aboriginal peoples in Canada contribute greatly to the malaise underlying the drafting of such unilateral legislative initiatives.

That international exposure is part of the reason we know that the government is stepping back and trying to distance itself.

Over the past year, I have met two United Nations representatives who were especially interested in the status of the first nations people and communities here in Canada because, even though the Conservatives keep hammering away about the economic boom and Canada's enviable economic situation, benefits have not trickled down to first nations communities, which are getting poorer as the rest of Canada gets richer. We know that, more often than not, resource development initiatives target these communities’ traditional territories. Communities here in the north are typically remote. The Canadian government has now been unmasked on the international stage. On two occasions, two UN rapporteurs have come to Canada in order to shed light on the living conditions in first nations communities and to find out why these communities live in third-world conditions even though Canada is experiencing an economic boom and we are cited as an example of economic development and progress.

This is probably the reason why the Canadian government is doing its best to create this gap between the communities and to distance itself from its obligations, but its efforts will be in vain.

It should be noted that the proposed innovation is overdue, particularly in sensitive areas, such as trade relations. When I refer to sensitive areas, I mean, for example, indianness. Such areas are also entrenched in the Constitution.

Now, I have noticed another trend here in the House of Commons. The Conservatives frequently try to use private members' bills in order to test the waters with the Canadian public, and to introduce policies that enjoy scant support among Canadians. These bills are intended, therefore, to take the pulse of Canadian public opinion. In my opinion, the objective of the bill before us today is, first and foremost, to assess and gauge how the communities will respond to this legislation. The Conservatives are checking to see whether the members of the first nations communities across Canada are going to look favourably upon this legislation, or be unsympathetic to the idea.

It is highly likely that the Conservatives are trying to see whether the first nations will be able to come up with legal arguments to oppose the proposed measures. The Conservatives are trying to test the waters and determine whether there will, in fact, be a court challenge.

As a lawyer, I can safely say that the matters relating to first nations funds that the bill addresses will be the subject of a court challenge and that there is a very strong likelihood that any such court challenge would be won by the communities since this is an attempt to substantially alter the fiduciary relationship between the communities and the Crown. I repeat that it is entrenched in the Constitution and, consequently, it is impossible to remove one brick, or the whole thing will come tumbling down.

It should be noted that the unilateral manner in which the proposed measures were introduced violates the spirit of the state's commitment to the self-determination of the first nations. I am of course referring to commitments made internationally to recognize the self-determination of the first nations. I am also referring to undertakings given and promises made.

Last January, a supposedly historic meeting took place here in Ottawa. The meeting was intended to be inclusive, but I was escorted to the exit. I was not able to attend because I was an outcast. I ended up on the sidewalk with other aboriginals who were also treated as outcasts. So, inclusive was perhaps not the best way to describe the meeting.

At the meeting, billed as historic, the focus was on the need to work closely, as a team, and show a real willingness to co-operate with the communities. It was all for show, if I may say so. It was a big media extravaganza. There is evidence of this today: there was no real desire to have the first nations contribute.

As my colleague stated earlier, what happened is none too clear since it is uncertain how many communities were actually consulted before the private member's bill was drafted. The bill smacks of other private members' bills that have been introduced in the past. Bills are being systematically foisted upon us.

Paternalistic is an adjective that comes to mind. There are copycats on the other side of the House. My colleagues opposite are being rather paternalistic to these communities by unilaterally foisting legislation on them. There is a problem here, and my colleague opposite mentioned it earlier. There has been little transparency regarding the authenticity of any efforts to consult the communities to determine whether the legislation was relevant to them and whether the communities wanted it.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for the opportunity to have a discussion and participate in this debate today. I also congratulate him for not only having the vision but the courage to put the bill forward.

I have had the opportunity to move a private member's bill through this hallowed place and it is not something that is easy to do, especially when one is not talking about national tree day or something that everyone agrees with, but talking about something that is somewhat contentious. It actually takes courage and strength of character to be able to even put the motion forward.

At the end of the day, I sit back and wonder what gives the member this strength. We need to look at his history and the fact that he is a member of Parliament who grew up on a first nation reserve, who raised his children in a first nations community, who has lived under this act and who understands what it does to individuals.

I have first nations communities in my riding. I have taken the opportunity not only to talk to some of the leadership of those communities, but to average people on the ball diamond, people who are affected by this act day-in and day-out and do not get some of the benefits that the leadership gets when they deal with the act. I must say that this is troubling. There is no one on either side of the House that has not called the Indian Act a paternalistic piece of legislation that is a failed opportunity for us to move forward. I do not think anyone disagrees that this is a failed piece of legislation. I do not think Canadians as a whole disagree with that.

We as Canadians are sitting on the precipice waiting for direction from the leaders who are voted into this place and who should help guide us in that direction. I believe there is a role for private members in this place. I believe that the private members who have lived their life under a piece of legislation, which we all agree has failed, should have the ability to stand in this place and say that we need to go forward in a different direction, that we should have these discussions in the House of Commons, in the Canadian Parliament, and that no one on any side of this House should be attacking people for simply putting forward the discussion.

I would direct members to the summary of the legislation that we are talking about. It reads:

This enactment amends the Indian Act to require band councils to publish their by-laws and repeals certain outdated provisions of the Act.

It also requires the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to report annually to the House of Commons committee responsible for Aboriginal affairs on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations organizations and other interested parties....

That is each and every year. If that is not starting a dialogue, I do not know what is. That is what this legislation is about. We all agree that this is a paternalistic piece of legislation that has been a failure and that is rooted in 200-year-old language.

What the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is saying is that we need to start having the conversation about how we will take this to the next level. I would remind members of the history of our government. We did not come into this place six and a half years ago with a national strategy to deal with it. We came with a plan, a plan that included amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure first nation communities would be represented under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I sat on the aboriginal affairs committee when that came forward and listened to the NDP members fight for two years for the ability to bring first nations communities under the Human Rights Act. They would much rather run to the United Nations and look for condemnation of Canadians as a whole than sit down, roll up their sleeves and work with this side of the House to make positive changes. Who here does not think, including every person in Canada, having first nations communities under the Human Rights Act is not a positive change?

The family homes on reserves and matrimonial property act sounds like a positive to me. What about the first nations financial transparency act? I am not sure what the opposition members have against transparency, but when I talk members of first nations communities, as I will be doing tomorrow in my riding, they demand transparency of their leadership just as they demand transparency of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and every member of Parliament.

We have the safe drinking water for first nations act. Those are just examples of things that our government did. We did not come in with a national strategy. We came in with a plan to actually make a difference in people's lives on reserve. I think that is much more important than taking another five years to develop another strategy that no one ever actually looks at implementing.

I sit here and wonder why they would not be in favour of things for first nations communities. Why would they not be in favour of bringing human rights to these communities?

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Politics.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

The member is right, it has to be politics. They like the system because they benefit from it. They would rather stick first nations communities in neutral and never see actual action taken. They would rather have another white paper to discuss racist comments from 30 years ago than actually look forward into the future, as my hon. colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River would have us do, and start having the discussion and debate. That is how we make changes in this great country. It is through rigorous debate. It is okay to bring positions forward and have first nations communities bring their positions forward and have this reported back to Parliament every year. I could not think of a more democratic, collaborative approach than what the member is actually proposing and I congratulate him for that.

I will make one other comment, a plea actually. I would like the members of the New Democratic Party of Canada to stand up for once and throw off the shackles of their whip. On this side of the House, we have proven that we have the courage to stand up for our constituents and vote their conscience. I would ask the New Democrats to do the same. We are talking about having a conversation with first nations communities and Canadians with political parties reporting it back to Parliament. The New Democrats will still get a chance to have their input but I urge them to vote their conscience for a change.

Indian Act Amendment and Replacement ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. The hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul will have three minutes when this matter returns before the House.

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

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak about an issue that I have been working on a lot lately, particularly in my capacity as deputy critic for public safety and as a member of Parliament for a riding that houses three federal penitentiaries.

On May 15, the Minister of Justice completely rejected the calculations of Quebec authorities that said that 1,000 people are imprisoned each day in Quebec alone. Yet, these calculations are based on fact and come from a reliable source. In fact, Quebec's public safety department estimates that the government's Bill C-10 will increase the prison population by 20%. That means an additional 1,000 people in the prison system, which is already 96% full.

The current facilities already do not have enough room for inmates, and now this government has decided to close two prisons and a treatment centre, including the Leclerc medium-security facility, which is located in my riding. Once again, the Minister of Public Safety is making ill-considered, ad hoc decisions without thinking about the consequences. Then, he is telling us that it will not cost a penny more. It does not make any sense.

Prison populations are being moved, other prisons are being expanded, and employees are being moved. These things cost money. The Minister of Public Safety also said that he did not see any problem with double-bunking in prisons. Double-bunking jeopardizes the safety of both correctional officers and inmates. This summer, I had the opportunity to participate in a symposium on overcrowding in Canadian prisons organized by the John Howard Society of Canada.

Experts agree that double-bunking is not a solution. When we take the time to think it over, it is clear that putting two individuals with two completely different profiles in the same cell designed for just one inmate increases the risk of confrontation. Confrontation between inmates also puts the safety of correctional officers in danger since these men and women have to manage these prisoners and juggle their different profiles.

Members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers are concerned about the repercussions Bill C-10 will have for the institutions. Their working environment will change completely. This will make their jobs even more stressful. It also means that they will be risking their lives every day with a significantly larger prison population. They feel that the penitentiaries are already overcrowded as a result of prison closures, budget cuts to the Correctional Service of Canada and the longer sentences imposed on new inmates.

I work with the union on a regular basis, especially regarding the closure of the Leclerc institution in my riding, and I have had the opportunity to visit the institution many times. I also had the opportunity to visit the other penitentiary that is closing its doors, the Kingston penitentiary, and Kingston's regional treatment centre.

These decisions do not make any sense. How can the government close institutions, cut CSC's budgets, impose longer sentences on inmates and think that it will not cost a penny more? How does this government plan to manage this disaster caused by its lack of judgment without compromising public safety and without spending a penny? Did the minister or the parliamentary secretary at least visit these institutions or consult experts in the field or the employees before applying these draconian measures?

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe New Brunswick

Conservative

Robert Goguen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest responsibilities that we have as a government is to protect Canadians and ensure that those who commit crimes are held to account. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their homes and that means criminals need to be off our streets.

By moving quickly to introduce the Safe Streets and Communities Act, our government fulfilled its commitment to hold criminals fully accountable, protect families and stand up for victims of crime. As the hon. member may know, after lengthy debate and study, Bill C-10 was passed by Parliament and received royal assent on March 13, 2012.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues exactly what Bill C-10 was.

Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, was a very targeted and specific legislation. Our experience shows that toughening sentences does not create new criminals, it just keeps the existing ones in jail for more appropriate periods of time.

A major component of the Safe Streets and Communities Act went after the source of the illicit trade, the drug traffickers.

Another major component of the Safe Streets and Communities Act went after child predators. No parent wants their child to fall prey to a pedophile. In fact, parents list abduction and sexual exploitation as two of the three concerns facing Canadian children.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act introduced two new amendments to the Criminal Code. It created new mandatory minimum penalties and increased existing ones to ensure that child sexual predators are off our streets.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act also went after criminals who were getting an easier ride by serving their sentences within the luxury of their own home by further restricting the use of conditional sentencing.

Lastly, the Safe Streets and Communities Act better protected Canadians from violent and repeat young offenders by proposing fair and appropriate measures to better handle youth crime. These measures were balanced, effective and responsible.

Canadians can be happy that the measures I have described have been adopted by Parliament. They can also rest assured that our government will continue to ensure that our streets and communities are safe and that victims receive the attention and support they rightly deserve.

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that I have only one minute to respond to my colleague, especially when he did not listen to a single word of my speech. All he did was reiterate the wonderful measures his party has taken.

I love hearing about this government, which claims to be tough on crime and committed to a balanced justice agenda. We all think it is a good idea to lock up child pornographers, as my colleague across the way says, and put criminals behind bars. However, the government must not close prisons or put inmates two to a cell. Most importantly, it must not put correctional officers' lives at risk, as I just said in my speech.

There are some serious inconsistencies in what my colleague is saying. It is quite a stretch to say that they have a balanced approach. What does my colleague think about that?

JusticeAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, the member said “inconsistencies”. Coming from the NDP, that is remarkable because they are so well versed in them.

Considering the fact that the member opposite is a member of the soft-on-crime New Democratic Party, I find it ironic that she has attempted to criticize or give advice to the Government of Canada on how to protect Canadians. If we follow the member's and her party's voting records, it would seem they think drug traffickers, child sexual predators and repeat violent offenders should be on our streets and in our communities.

Canadians can be assured that this government will never side with criminals and will continue to fight and better protect our communities.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to explain why her government is so determined to attack unemployed workers.

Since their infamous mammoth budget bill was implemented, the Conservatives have continued their attacks on workers who have lost their jobs by introducing a misguided and ill-conceived EI reform. In the weeks that followed the passing of the budget, Canadians were left in the dark because the minister would not say anything about many of the important points of her reform. In particular, she would not clearly define what her government meant by the terms “suitable employment” and “reasonable job search”. The opposition and civil society put so much pressure on this government to get a clear definition that the minister finally gave in last May and explained the details of her reform, details that were previously unknown.

One had to wonder whether her deliberate silence was due to the fact that the Conservatives were keen to maintain strict control of the information—which is typical of their management style, even regarding public affairs—or if the government simply did not know what it was doing when it hastily threw together the EI reform at the last minute.

Furthermore, the more we learned about the reform, the more it became obvious that it was riddled with flaws that will eventually make the system inaccessible and inefficient. This recently became very obvious when the minister had to backpedal on the working while on claim pilot project. In that case, even after being pestered for weeks by the opposition, the minister provided a complex solution that is virtually impossible to implement. It was just a smokescreen for unemployed workers who receive little money while looking for work.

In short, what we now know is that the system will no longer fulfill its main purpose, which is to provide temporary financial assistance to those who need it and who pay into the employment insurance fund.

It is evident from all the information about changes to employment insurance that despite the bogus financial justifications that have no sound basis, the Conservatives are directly attacking workers who lose their jobs and pay their premiums in good faith in order to be sheltered in bad times.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are imposing a conservative, right-wing reform and are using their propaganda to attack our social programs such as employment insurance. However, Canadians are not fools and can see right through their ideological games. Reducing the size of government too much affects the social programs and safety nets that are vital to Canadians and so closely aligned with their values.

I would like to know what the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has to say to Canadians who have been desperately telling her since last March that the reform is bad, punishing, degrading, ill-conceived and counter to Canadian values of solidarity.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont Alberta

Conservative

Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, a lot of assumptions have been made as to what constitutes suitable employment in the changes made to employment insurance.

The current legislation lacks clarity with respect to what constitutes “suitable employment” and what is meant by “reasonable job search”.

Right now, the Employment Insurance Act merely states the claimants are obligated to search for and accept suitable employment but does not say what this means. The act only defines what is not suitable employment.

This spring, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development outlined several points that would be contained in the upcoming regulations on this matter.

Suitable employment would be based upon six points, two of which would vary according to the claimant's EI history and duration of the claim.

The first point is personal circumstances. People receiving EI would not have to accept work if they have health problems that would prevent them from taking a specific job; if they have family obligations that would prevent them from working at certain times of the day; if they have limited transportation options, in terms of commuting to and from work; or if they are not physically capable of performing the work.

The second point is working conditions. The job offered must not be vacant due to a strike, lockout or other labour dispute.

The third point is based upon hours worked and the type of work to be done, including responsibilities, tasks, wages and experience.

The fourth point is commuting time. The workplace must be within a one-hour commute or a standard commuting time for the region.

The fifth point is based upon the type of work. The sixth point would focus on hourly wages. These last two criteria would vary, based upon the claimant's EI history and the duration of the claim.

In determining the criteria, claimants would be placed in one of three categories: long-tenured workers who, after 18 weeks, would be required to expand their job search to jobs similar to the one they normally perform and accept wages starting at 80% of their previously hourly wage; frequent claimants who, after 7 weeks, would be required to accept wages starting at 70% of their previous hourly wage; and occasional claimants who, after 18 weeks, would be required to expand their job search to include any work they are qualified to perform, with wages starting at 70% of their previous salary but not below the prevailing minimum wage.

It is important to know that these changes would provide clarity for Canadians as to what would constitute suitable employment.

As we face unprecedented labour and skills shortages, it is important that the employment insurance program work most effectively for Canadians.

Our government's top priority is the economy, and we are proud to have seen more than 820,000 net new jobs created since the end of the economic recession.

At the same time, we recognize there are Canadians who are having difficulty finding work, particularly in the off-season in parts of the country where much of the economy is based upon seasonal industries. Our government is working to help these Canadians find jobs in their local area, appropriate to their qualifications. For those who are unable to find employment, employment insurance would be there for them, as it always has been.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, when will the government admit that even more people will be denied access to employment insurance as a result of this change? I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that only 40% of people have access to it now, when it is the workers and the employers who pay into the fund. It is absolutely not a government tax that pays into the EI fund.

The change will lower salaries, as the hon. member was saying. It will impoverish and stigmatize the unemployed. It will devalue the skills of our workforce and make appeal mechanisms stricter. It will impoverish thousands of unemployed people who work part time while receiving benefits and looking for full-time employment. It will weaken the economies of our regions that rely on seasonal industries such as the fishery, agriculture, forestry, construction and tourism.

Next week is national unemployment week. Workers, employers and the unemployed everywhere will raise their voice loud and clear to express how senseless this change is and that it only serves to further reduce access to the employment insurance system to which people are entitled. It is a way of driving our constituents into poverty.

Employment InsuranceAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member asked when the government would admit something. What I want to know is when the NDP will admit that this government has created more than 800,000 net new jobs through the actions we have taken over the past several years. When will the NDP actually stand up and support those actions?

The member talks about undermining the economy. The question I have for the hon. member is: What does she think $21.5 billion in carbon taxes would do to the Canadian economy? Of course, that $21.5 billion was clearly outlined in the NDP platform, in its costing document, as a means to pay for some of the extravagant promises the NDP was making.

That type of step, that type of policy plan would absolutely be a disaster for the Canadian economy. We will oppose that every step of the way.

Foreign TakeoversAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to follow up a question that I asked during question period a few days ago about the government's foreign takeover policy. This is especially timely now because the Conservative members of the House, less than a fortnight ago, voted down an opposition motion that would have made the review process for foreign takeovers more transparent. They voted against the motion to hold public hearings on the proposed $15 billion takeover of Nexen by the Communist Chinese state-owned China National Offshore Oil Company. They voted against all of this barely two years after the same Conservative members voted unanimously in favour of a similar motion introduced in this House by Jack Layton, which called for those same public hearings and transparency on foreign takeovers.

I asked the members on the other side of the House what had changed in the last two years. In just a couple of years the Prime Minister has shifted from accusing China of industrial espionage and a deplorable human rights records. In fact, he refused to attend the Beijing Olympics as a result. Now he is trying to bulldoze northern British Columbia's pristine forests so that we can ship raw, unprocessed bitumen by tankers to Communist China as fast as possible.

As I mentioned earlier in the chamber, this fire sale of western Canadian national resources comes at a time when eastern Canadians, like my constituents, are importing much more expensive foreign oil to heat their homes and put gas in their tanks. Mark Carney has been raising this issue repeatedly, asking why we sell low in the west and buy high in the east. Instead of shipping raw resources abroad, having a pipeline from western Canada to eastern Canada would help stem the loss of $19 billion a year from the Canadian economy. Will this strategic interest be helped in any way by selling Nexen to China's CNOOC?

There is even an existing natural gas pipeline route from west to east, going through Thunder Bay—Superior North. There is no reason that we could not lay another pipeline along the same route to bring petroleum and value added processing jobs, perhaps to a Thunder Bay refinery, for example.

Even the former Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, is calling on Ottawa to prioritize a west to east oil pipeline to mitigate Canada's growing energy fueled economic imbalance.

Most Canadians would likely think that our own energy security interests would be part of any foreign takeover review, but they would be wrong. The net benefit criteria in the Investment Canada Act are so fuzzy that national security is not even defined in it, and energy security is not mentioned at all.

The industry minister's answer to my question can basically be summed up with two words: “Trust us”. How can Canadians trust an opaque backroom review process based on criteria that are poorly defined, or where key considerations like our energy security are missing altogether? How can Canadians trust a government that seems to make energy policy decisions more on the basis of political ideology than practical strategic interests?

Instead of hiding behind the Investment Canada Act, which even the government has admitted needs updating, I am hoping to hear tonight and henceforth more substantial answers.

Foreign TakeoversAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont Alberta

Conservative

Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to a question posed earlier regarding the proposed investment by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, CNOOC, in a Canadian oil company.

First of all, I would like to reaffirm this government's commitment to welcoming foreign investment that benefits Canada. The fact is that foreign investment is crucial to the Canadian economy and to prosperity in Canada. It introduces new technologies and practices that promote growth, employment and innovation here at home. Foreign investment brings some of the most productive and specialized firms in the world to Canada and results in some of the highest paying jobs for Canadians. It also connects Canadian businesses with new markets and offers them a place in global supply chains.

This government also recognizes that Canadian businesses must compete in a globalized economy and we are committed to creating the right conditions for Canadian businesses to succeed internationally.

Canada has signed foreign investment promotion and protection agreements, or FIPAs, with numerous countries, including a recent agreement with the People's Republic of China, which help connect our firms to the rest of the world and create a stable, secure environment for two-way investment between Canada and other countries.

FIPAs accomplish their objectives by setting out the respective rights and obligations of the countries that are signatories to the treaty with respect to the treatment of foreign investment.

FIPAs seek to ensure that foreign investors will not be treated worse than similarly situated domestic investors or other foreign investors. They will not have their investments expropriated without prompt and adequate compensation, and in any case, they will not be subject to treatment lower than the minimum standard established in customary international law. As well, in most circumstances, investors should be free to invest capital and repatriate their investments and returns.

We will continue our work to secure access to foreign markets in order to ensure the success of our own Canadian businesses abroad.

With respect to foreign investments, our government has a sound process in place to ensure they benefit Canadians. We have made targeted amendments to the Investment Canada Act to provide greater transparency to the public, more flexibility in enforcement and an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation. Our government's review process will be used to conduct a careful review of the proposed acquisition that the hon. member mentions.

Foreign TakeoversAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments but a lot of questions about the government's position on this takeover still remain.

Will there be reciprocity? Will Canadian resource companies be able to buy Chinese ones or will they stay shut out?

Then there is Iran. In 2008 CNOOC signed a $16 billion investment deal with Iran. CNOOC's extensive business there becomes very relevant now that the government has just suspended diplomatic ties, a bold move. This follows the trade sanctions that the government has also imposed against Iran.

If companies operating in Canada must abide by Canadian law, including trade restrictions on them from these sanctions, will a CNOOC-owned Nexen be exempt?

Can the member explain the Canada-China foreign investment protection agreement, which apparently grants more investor-state protections to foreign companies operating in Canada than Canadian companies currently have. This includes the ability to sue the Canadian government if it introduces new safety, health, labour or environment laws that threaten the Chinese company's profits.

Foreign TakeoversAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Mr. Speaker, under this government Canada has been and will continue to be open for business. We welcome foreign investment that provides a net benefit for Canadians and helps grow the economy. We will continue to provide an economic climate that allows Canadian firms to prosper. We will not go down the path of protectionism. Canada cannot afford to fall behind and that is exactly where protectionist policies will land us.

Instead, this government takes a responsible approach to foreign investment. To that end, the proposed transaction will be scrutinized very closely to ensure that it represents a net benefit to Canada.