Debates of Nov. 21st, 2014

Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-26. As members know, the NDP will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee. We believe that legislation can play an important role in preventing child sexual abuse, as it can help to deal with and counter crimes in a whole range of areas. However, where we disagree with the Conservatives is that this is all that it does. I will be pointing out in the 10 minutes I have that a number of other actions that the Conservative government has taken actually contribute to a rise in certain criminal rates.

Legislation can certainly help to deal with it in part, but when the resources are no longer available, there can be a counter effect. As the justice minister has admitted to, the government, which has been in power now for almost a decade, in this case has put in place a range of things that have tragically contributed to an increase in the rate of sexual offences against children.

New Democrats will be supporting the bill going to committee. As we always do, we will be bringing forward reasoned amendments, after listening to witnesses who come before committee, to make sure that the bill is as good as it can possibly be. That is our responsibility as parliamentarians. We would all agree on that.

This bill is important, and we hope that the government will consider amendments at the committee stage. We certainly hope that government will take a very thoughtful approach on this bill. This is an extremely important issue, one that all Canadians feel parliamentarians should be working together on to achieve and resolve, which is lowering the rates of child sexual abuse in Canada. There is no doubt about that.

To do that, the government can offer legislation, which is what it has done. New Democrats have responded by saying we will support this legislation going to committee, and now it is back to the government side to accept the amendments that will be offered. New Democrats work very hard in committee. We thoroughly examine the evidence and bring forward the best possible amendments. However, tragically, we have seen in case after case that the government has refused those amendments. It has simply said that it is not going to accept any amendments on bills.

As a result, so far this year, we have seen that half a dozen pieces of legislation have been rejected by the courts. If the Conservative government had accepted the amendments offered by the NDP, the legislation would not have been recalled. However, because the government has an “our way or the highway” attitude on so many pieces of legislation, the courts have said that legislation does not hold water and cannot undergo the careful scrutiny that courts require.

New Democrats hope that this will not be the case on Bill C-26. Since we are supporting it going to committee, we hope that the government will say it will look at the reasoned amendments that can make a difference to improving this bill.

However, it is not just a bill and not just legislation that will lower the rates of child sexual abuse in this country. The rise of 6% over the last couple of years is a very disturbing trend.

What are the other decisions that the government has made that may have contributed to that rise? I mentioned earlier, in speaking with my colleague from York South—Weston, about the ending of the National Crime Prevention Centre, a centre that did good work across the country in seeking to achieve a lowering of the crime rate. That is something that has happened over the last few years, and I have risen in the House before to speak to it. It is a slashing of funding. There have been tens of millions of dollars that have been taken out of crime prevention funding. This is wrong-headed, for the simple reason that for every dollar invested in crime prevention programs—and other countries have seen this, the Scandinavian countries, and countries in Europe—we save $6 in policing costs, courts costs, and incarceration costs.

Let us look at that formula. As a society, we had $100 million in crime prevention funding slashed by the current government, and yet for every dollar that was invested in crime prevention, we saved $6 as a society in policing costs, court costs, and incarceration costs. However, even more, the greater benefit is the fact that the crime is not committed in the first place. We are not only investing our money prudently, as a society, to reduce the crime rate, but we are also avoiding having the victims in the first place. That has to be the result that all members of Parliament share. Certainly on this side of the House, the NDP has been the foremost proponent of investing significantly in crime prevention programs. We see the benefit of not having the victims in the first place, and we see the benefit of investing that $1 to save $6 in policing, court, and incarceration costs.

For the government to slash crime prevention, as it has over the last few years, has been simply wrong-headed, and I believe we are seeing some of the results. There is a 6% rise in child sexual abuse when crime prevention is slashed. I believe there is a connection between those two things.

That is not all that has been slashed under the current government. The government side may say that it is a question of resources, but the reality is that we all know what the government is investing in heavily right now: tax cuts for the very wealthy in society. We believe that veterans deserve services, that costs to veterans should be paid, and that crime prevention should be invested in. Those are choices on the part of the government. We also make choices as a society. However, rather than investing billions of dollars in tax cuts for the very wealthy, we say that it makes a lot more sense to put that money into things like supporting services for veterans, as we saw earlier today, or putting crime prevention programs in place.

It is not just crime prevention; it is also addiction programs that have been slashed under the current government. That is another tragedy. The government is slashing both crime prevention and addiction treatment. At the same time, the Conservatives are asking why child sexual abuse rates are rising. However, that is not all. The community resources that are supposed to counter the abuse of children have largely been cut as part of the overall cuts to crime prevention programs.

As well, the whole issue around policing is something on which we disagree with the government. The government promised to put more police officers on the streets of the cities across the country, and the current government has manifestly failed in providing that kind of support. When I talk to my local police officers, a problem that they continually raise is the underfinancing of policing.

On that note, there is the issue of the public safety officer compensation fund, an NDP initiative that I brought forward in 2006. The Conservatives voted for it. It is now 2014, yet we still do not have a public safety officer compensation fund in place to support the families of fallen police officers and firefighters who die in the line of duty. The Conservatives voted for it before they became government, and they have now waited for eight years and have still not brought that in. On this side of the House, we say that is a shame. The public safety officer compensation fund needs to be put into place, and the families of fallen firefighters and fallen police officers need to be taken care of.

The record of the current government goes beyond the concern that the Conservatives seem to have expressed in bringing forward Bill C-26. They brought forward the bill, which we support, but they are not doing the other things that could do much more, along with the bill, to reduce the child sexual abuse rates in this country. The current government has put in a number of pieces of legislation on a wide variety of issues, and yet it is not having the impact that was obviously intended. That is because legislation is only a small part of how we combat crime, reduce crime rates, and put in place an effective crime prevention strategy.

We are going to be in an election in less than 11 months. In fact, the election date is already set for October 19, 2015. Canadians will be putting the current government aside and looking for a change of agenda in Ottawa. That is what the NDP offers. We will be investing in crime prevention programs. We will be investing in and keeping commitments around policing. We will be putting in place addiction treatment programs. We will be providing community resources to counter abuse of children. That is the kind of platform that people can get around, to ensure that we lower the rates of abuse against children.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the wide-ranging remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, which were often not on the child predators act that is before the House.

This shows the fundamental difference between that side of the House and this side. They cling to only one element of sentencing and criminal justice principles in Canada, which is rehabilitation. That is important, but as the Criminal Code also outlines, principles like deterrence, denunciation, and public safety are also very important to our criminal justice system. I find it shocking that those principles, particularly when we are dealing with crimes directed at children, would not be paramount to principles of rehabilitation and the sorts of things that are the traditional areas for the NDP in criminal justice.

When it comes to crimes against children, I would ask the House leader of the NDP whether it is not more important to ensure public safety, denunciation of the actions, and those elements of our sentencing and criminal justice system.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary obviously did not listen to a single word that I said. This is why Canadians are so put off by the government. He did not listen to a single word. He has his talking points that respond to something that the Conservatives thought the NDP might say.

We have had a very thoughtful discussion and statements from this side of the House, yet the parliamentary secretary went back to his talking points rather than listening to what we have been saying.

What we have been saying, of course, is that legislation is a part of dealing with that, but if the Conservative government had actually taken effective measures, the child sexual abuse rate would be going down, not up.

Why is it going up? As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives have cut and slashed crime prevention funding. They have not kept their funding commitments to police officers across the country. I hear about it often in my riding from police officers themselves. They have cut community resources to counter abuse of children. They have slashed addiction treatment. They have repeatedly taken actions that are not helpful to what should be our common goal.

I am sure that he shares the ultimate goal. I have no doubt that reducing child sexual abuse rates is something that all parliamentarians share. However, when the Conservatives then say, “All we need to do is this. We don't need to do anything else. We can slash crime prevention rates. We can opt not to keep our commitments to police officers. We can reduce resources available that counter sexual abuse of children—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has more than exceeded his time for reply to that question.

The hon. member for Alfred—Pellan.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is passionate about this issue. Unfortunately, there are a number of things this bill does not address.

My colleague mentioned the Conservative government's chronic underfunding, which leads me to what happened at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during a study on social finance. The government's idea was to offload some of its responsibility for funding community organizations and relegating it to private organizations. It is ridiculous.

In committee, we heard from representatives of a very effective support agency that works with people who are at risk of reoffending in our communities. They gave us a good example of their work.

Among other things, they ensure that there is social support for the people who seriously reoffended in the past, including committing sexual offences against children. Funding helps the agency to reduce, even completely eliminate, the rate of recidivism. Unfortunately, the Conservative government decided to stop funding that agency.

Beyond the fact that the agencies working to prevent recidivism are underfunded, what does my colleague think of the government's decision to stop funding these agencies?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan does excellent work in the House and I very much appreciate her question. She focused precisely on what I have been arguing for the past several minutes.

The Conservatives made cuts to all the programs that help reduce the rate of abuse against children in Canada. The bill is not really going to change much. The government must change the other measures it has taken and it should start by restoring funding for these programs.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. As we can see, this bill affects a number of laws and amends many sections in those laws. It is rather complex and therefore it is vital that it be properly studied by experts in committee.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading stage so that it goes to committee. We hope that the Conservatives will be open-minded enough to listen to the testimony of experts and the many people—I hope—who will come and speak about the important subject of protection for our children and families. Consequently, I hope that the Conservatives will open their ears and are receptive to what they have to say.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am not qualified to speak about the technical aspects of this file, but I do want to say that it is important to understand that this bill must be amended and improved in committee and that we must sit down with experts on the subject. My colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who does an excellent job, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and other NDP members have clearly explained this.

We will study these proposals carefully. We hope to see measures that will protect our children in practical ways and make our communities safer, not measures that just sound good at news conferences. That is not the goal. We also know that our communities need more resources to deal with the sexual abuse of children. Increasing prison sentences is not enough. That is the direction we hope to take in our discussions. Of course, the devil is in the details. When it comes to the Conservatives' laws, it is important to listen to the experts in the field.

I am the member for Drummond, and I represent, to the best of my abilities, the people who voted for me and all the other residents of Drummond. It is very important to focus first and foremost on prevention, as other members who spoke before me also mentioned. Obviously, we need to prevent crime. That is very important. Many organizations and stakeholders in the greater Drummond area are doing excellent work. I would like to name a few to show what a dynamic community Drummond is, and to give members an idea of what the Conservative government could do to support these organizations.

CALACS La Passerelle de Drummondville was one of the first organizations to work on addressing sexual violence. It provides free and confidential assistance and outreach services. These services fall under three main categories, namely help and outreach, advocacy and prevention. I am mentioning this organization because it also does prevention work. It informs victims of the recourse available to them, helps them deal with the consequences of a recent or past assault, helps them take back control of their lives, and supports them in whatever steps they decide to take, whether it be medical, legal or some other type of action. This organization also visits schools—which is wonderful—to teach children and youth about verbal, psychological and sexual abuse. Boys often learn how to behave toward women and girls at a young age. It is all about prevention, learning and education. This Drummondville organization and its staff are doing excellent work. I am very proud of them and wanted to mention the contribution they make to my region.

CAVAC is another organization that is doing excellent work in Drummondville, in central Quebec. It provides assistance to victims of crime, their loved ones and even people who witnessed a crime, whether it is a break and enter or any other crime. The staff at the Centre-du-Québec CAVAC can help people cope with what they are going through and the physical, psychological and social effects. They can also help people seek compensation for damages.

The CAVAC in Drummondville has an excellent team that provides amazing support to the public. The team is made up of a criminologist and three forensic social workers, and we are proud to have them there. They are able to provide excellent follow-up for victims. It is important to be there to support them.

Another important organization is Commun Accord, which focuses on alternative justice. Traditional justice is not needed in all cases, and that is where Commun Accord comes in. Its mission is to foster the development and practice of alternative justice and educational activities to promote harmonious relationships within the community. This is another organization that focuses on education and prevention among young people and the general public.

We can certainly look at how to bring people to justice, but we also need to look at prevention and education. The Conservative government does not do that at all, unfortunately. All it cares about is its criminalization policy.

I would like to mention another organization, since there are so many in Drummondville. La Rose des Vents conducts prevention and awareness activities in schools and the community in order to demystify and condemn violence and show how it affects both the victim and the aggressor. The workers answer people's questions, tear down prejudices and support caregivers. They also try to identify victims before it is too late.

That is another important organization that works very hard and stresses the need to break the taboos surrounding sexual violence, for example. There is currently a campaign encouraging people to talk about incest and break that taboo. We need to support these organizations, which do incredible work in our communities. I am proud of these organizations, the workers and all of the volunteers.

I would be remiss if I did not mention one last Drummondville organization and highlight the diversity and significant contributions of these organizations. L'Envolée des mères is a new organization that started up in Drummondville in early 2014. It is an 18-unit housing project that will give young single moms and their children access to housing, support, employment and education, and to a nearby day care centre. This support will help young moms with all kinds of problems who want to take control of their lives.

I am proud to say that l'Envolée des mères asked me for a personal donation and I was delighted to oblige. It was my pleasure. One of those units will be named after Jack Layton, and I am very happy to support it for young mothers. Social housing was a priority for Jack Layton.

I am very pleased that one of the units will be named after Jack Layton thanks to my personal donation and my contribution to the community. I made a small contribution to that community, and I am very proud of that. I would like to thank all of the organizations in Drummondville for the hard work they do in the name of prevention and education.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heard from my colleague across the floor that it is all about provincial program funding for rehabilitation. To put it simply, I come from an RCMP background where we had to study, know, and enforce the Criminal Code. In Parliament, and as parliamentarians, we create laws that go into the Criminal Code to protect young children. I have had to investigate many sexual assaults. It is not pleasant to see young children who have become vulnerable to the predators on the Internet who are going after them. It is great that my colleagues want to support this going to committee stage, but what they should be doing is supporting it throughout by unanimous consent. This is a good bill for all the kids out there. For once, let us do something right. Will my colleagues support it unanimously?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am sure he has seen some pretty nasty things, since he has had to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. I completely agree that we will be supporting this bill at second reading to send it to committee.

Why send it to committee? As I said at the beginning of my speech, this bill amends many sections of existing laws. I am not an expert in criminal matters, far from it. I therefore do not want to pass judgment on the fundamental principles of this bill. However, I do want the experts to have a chance to do so. It is important that the bill go to committee so that the experts can analyze it.

The member is quite right; it is important to take action once an offence has been committed so it does not happen again, but prevention and education are also important to stop crime before it happens.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond. I was especially touched by what he said regarding community involvement in dealing with these issues. He also told us about the excellent work being done by community organizations in Drummondville. That is so important.

This brings me to a question I had about the community aspect of the reintegration of offenders after they have served their sentence.

What does my colleague think that offenders need in order to reintegrate into society? Does he agree with the approach taken by this government, which has been making cuts to the very important funding needed by communities to support reintegration?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who is doing excellent work on her files. I listened to her speech earlier, and she has a very good grasp of this issue.

Of course, we need to do this one step at a time. We must first ensure that prevention and education are being offered in our communities and in our schools, and then make laws after that. I definitely understand the need to have strict laws. However, once offenders have served their sentences, they must be reintegrated. It is therefore important that they have proper support from the time they enter the correctional system. There needs to be training and programs in place that facilitate social reintegration and follow-up. This will help keep people safe. Indeed, that is what we are talking about here—keeping our children and our families safe.

I fully support the position of my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who knows this file very well.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November 24, 2014, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would request consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the federal government, in exercising its jurisdiction, should submit natural resource development projects to a broader consultation with First Nations and citizens in communities and urban areas affected by the establishment of such activities, and that public willingness should be a criterion in obtaining a development permit to the same degree as impacts on human health, ecosystem maintenance, employment and economic development.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that will be debated in the House is the culmination of the environmental citizenship initiative that began in Manicouagan in 2009.

Why 2009? That is the year I became active in environmental issues after my band council, where I was legal counsel, received a visit from a Romanian engineer who had come to inform us that a company was prospecting for uranium on our land. The people on my band council were quite amazed to learn about it because no one had been informed. Ultimately, there was an outcry about this situation.

Thousands of citizens—about 2,000— marched in the streets of Sept-Îles in the middle of the winter, to speak out against these activities. They were protesting the lack of transparency and the secrecy surrounding the activities, rather than the mining itself, although the mining, even at the exploratory stage, could cause problems for the water tables and the Moisie River watershed, which is nearby.

The public spoke out against this mainly because there was a lack of transparency and of will. An economic entity had acted in secret.

The company's stock price plummeted after this protest. Ultimately, the company fled the Côte-Nord, and its shares were decimated.

Other areas in the north have supported the claims that the public should be involved in the decision-making process associated with industrial projects. Grassroots mobilization is now significant and can be assessed due to the multiplicity of action-based measures and tools put in place by citizen advocacy groups. When I talk about citizen action, I will be contrasting it with the significant financial clout of industry players, such as the major industrial lobbies.

For example, three days ago a document surfaced. It was from a group that was hired by TransCanada as part of the energy east project. The document revealed that the industry players in 2014 are not even hiding it anymore and are prepared to put it on paper: their desire to muzzle the public is so strong that they are willing to pay up to $7.75 an hour for people to speak out publicly against those who are questioning the legitimacy of the project and how it will impact the environment.

The industry players in 2014 are prepared to invest money in these tactics rather than working together, trying to listen to the public's claims and coming to an agreement. In fact, they operate behind closed doors and are prepared to spend serious money. We see the disparity and the lack of balance here, since the public has little financial clout. Big business is willing to pay $7.75 an hour, which opens Pandora's box, so to speak. In short, we can see that there is a serious imbalance of power.

The only tool people have left is mobilization. In the past, that particular tool has not been very good for investment. In 2009, Terra Ventures' share price dropped dramatically and ended up being worth nothing, and the company had to leave the region because it did not start by including people.

I feel that citizen participation is indispensable. Genuine listening and paying attention are critical to securing public willingness, which is one of the main points of this motion. Citizens must be involved from the earliest stages of any given initiative. If citizens are not involved, eventually they will get up in arms, and that is bad for the industry and the economy in general.

The fundamental basis of all these demands is noble indeed. Citizens are entitled to expect to be more involved in processes related to natural resource extraction undertakings.

As I said, in 2009, a public education campaign about the Lac Kachiwiss project ultimately led to mobilization. Now, in 2014, public participation has increased dramatically and is not happening just in Sept-Îles or on the North Shore. It is happening across Canada.

In fact, that is what the TransCanada report indicated. In Quebec, activism on environmental issues is going strong, and there are more ecologists. Is that a bad thing? Time will tell. Still, more and more people are mobilizing about this.

That is why industry players now have to pay through the nose to hire the services of big communications firms. I have a message for National, the firm that is currently operating just outside Sept-Îles: we are keeping an eye on you and the Arnaud Mine, given that the same modus operandi is being used on the north shore. The local people are on to you.

The public awareness raising that began in 2009 has paid off because still in 2014, we are seeing incredible mobilization and citizen involvement on the north shore. We have even been cited as a national role model. It is for the common good, after all.

The message to industry players that has been developed over the years is that actively seeking public approval for proposed mining activities is a guarantee of a stable climate that is conducive to investment, unlike the view the government takes.

The Conservatives and successive governments have seen citizen engagement as an obstacle to Canada's economic growth. That is where they err in fact and in law, since citizen engagement is a guarantee of stability and good for the economy and investment. If people are involved from the early stages of a given initiative, this greatly diminishes the chances that they will end up demonstrating in the streets to make their voices heard, sometimes more assertively than not. When 2,000 people are outside when it is –25 degrees Celsius, with small children, dogs and placards in tow, that is not good for investment or the country's international reputation.

Rather than investing in communication programs designed to repress people, industry players would be much better off working in a truly inclusive manner. That does not mean just saying on paper that they held consultations, when people's concerns have not been taken into account, the public really has only secondary influence, and industry players are trying to sideline people and pit community groups against each other.

That is what is happening right now in Sept-Îles with National, the firm I mentioned earlier. The industry behind this is creating its own community groups and then pitting them against existing groups. Rather than dealing with the situation directly and involving people who may have dissenting opinions, the industry is trying to pit other community groups against them so that these matters are dealt with in the streets. That is not a very progressive idea.

Given that people have leverage when it comes to natural resource extraction initiatives, it was important for me to place the concept of the expression of public willingness in the context of decision making. The public should be involved when economic incentives and environmental impacts are being examined.

Implementing natural resource extraction initiatives has an effect on economic development and the environment. In the future, the best approach would be to hold some sort of plebiscite to get the public's approval and make sure that people support the project. That is just as important as any other social, economic or environmental considerations. People need to feel as though they are involved and their opinions are taken into account.

When I was writing my notes and the motion, I felt it was crucial to stay away from older concepts such as sustainable development and social accessibility. It is sad, but these concepts have been recycled and are now trademarked. That is why I chose instead to use the concept of the expression of public willingness.

When I eat my cereal in the morning, it says “sustainable development” on the box. It has become a trademark. The industry has appropriated these concepts and they are now devoid of all meaning. Claims are being made left and right. There are sustainable development experts in 2014. It means nothing now, and people are not stupid. That is why I put forward this new concept of the expression of public willingness.

How long will it take for the industry to recycle that concept? That is what I am asking. I know one thing for certain, and that is that it is very clear: expression of public willingness, public approval and, finally, acceptability. This is where true social acceptability lies. A plebiscite must be held to determine whether the public really agrees with the proposed idea and initiative.

When I was writing this motion, I tried to distance myself from worn-out social and environmental concepts in order to offer a completely innovative vision for the Canadian people who are looking for another voice in Parliament.

In a certain way, the public is rejecting the government's initiatives. Cynicism has seeped into society, partly because of how essential and defining concepts, such as sustainable development, have become watered down. It started out as a noble concept. It is still somewhat noble today, but it has been overused, especially since our environmental safeguards have been ignored and gutted. Take, for example, the Navigation Protection Act. The legislation included environmental protection, but it was gutted and the only tool available to people now is mobilization.

Once again, there is the misconception that public mobilization and engagement are a barrier to economic growth. Yes, that is how it is in 2014. Indeed, when people take to the streets with signs, that attracts attention. The media pay attention, and that influences stock prices and value. If companies invested as much in including people as they are currently investing in suppressing public opinion, we would not have the level of public outcry or the troubling situation that we have right now.

The disillusionment and the gradual rejection of government initiatives in this country by a growing segment of the population—not only in Quebec, but across Canada, contrary to what the TransCanada communication plan indicated—are closely tied to feelings of powerlessness regarding public protection measures that have proven to be meaningless. We must face the facts: public powers, under constant pressure from industry money, have managed to ignore social and environmental public protection mechanisms for the most part.

For members' information, over the past three years, mining lobbyists have come to see me six times at my office. I am a nice enough person and I will not show them the door. I work with them, but they know that I am not really in favour of the proposed measures. They even had the audacity to show up with two lawyers who took notes and an army of legal experts and stakeholders. The last time they came, I did not have enough room in my office to offer all of them a seat. Now they come in groups of six. I continue to open my door. I cannot refuse. The mining industry is important to Manicouagan. We can see where things stand with someone who is not really in favour of the measures being proposed in 2014. Imagine someone who is open to what they are proposing; they must always be in their office. These people have rented an office not far from Parliament. They are close by and they are ever-present on Parliament Hill. If they came to my office six times, I can hardly imagine what it must be like for the Conservatives. They must have a red phone, like Batman, to have a direct line to them. I submit this to you.

I talked about the constant pressure from big industrial lobby groups. I think one thing should be perfectly clear to those who oppose this idea and to my colleagues in the House: citizen involvement is a guarantee of stability. It is good for the market. The parties need to involve citizens, not disingenuously say that they are being consulted. Citizens' concerns and goals must be genuinely taken into account. Stability flows from a genuine desire to include people. They are on the wrong track now. Suppressing public opinion is the wrong way to go, and TransCanada's communication document was a bad idea. There really has to be a desire to include people.

I submit this respectfully.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought forward an incredibly important motion at this point in history on how we are addressing energy projects in this country.

The member, I am sure, has noted that the Minister of Natural Resources just this week committed to engaging communities in environmental stewardship in reserve decisions, and yet it is a year almost to the day that the government commissioned a report by Douglas Eyford looking at how the government failed to consult first nations on the gateway project. Mr. Eyford delivered four or five pages of recommendations on how the government could improve and yet we have seen no progress. We are going backward with respect to constructive consultation.

I wonder if the member would speak to that and the lack of the government's credibility in claiming to be committed to more constructive engagement.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think that the crux of the matter in this case is that the other side has the wrong idea about consultation. If first nations were truly consulted, we would not have near-riots on Parliament Hill, where dozens of chiefs tried to break down the main door to be heard. If there were true consideration of aboriginal interests and prerogatives, we would not have these problems.

I think that the government is mistaken about the notion of consultation and consideration of the results in particular. If it holds consultations and then shelves the results, aspirations and concerns, that really is not consultation. The government has to follow through. I hope, and they have one year because there will be an election for everyone in 2015, that the Conservatives change their approach. We are going to assume that they will show goodwill in the future.

This does not just concern first nations. This concerns all Canadians because clean air and the environment are vital to the Canadian people.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard the member say that if a local group is opposed to a project, then the project should not go forward. I am sure that everyone is aware that projects should be in the best interests of all Canadians.

I am wondering if the member is aware of the benefits of developing our natural resources here in Canada. Could he comment on why the NDP seems to be opposed to developing those resources?