Don Davies

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, because it gives me an opportunity to speak about what I think are two very critical issues in the public governance field. The first is the question of sound, appropriate public policy in government. The second issue, which I think is just as important, has to do with two different visions of an economic development model in this country, one from the government and one from the New Democrats. I would like to point out that I think Bill C-9 highlights this very critical difference for Canadians.

I want to start, first, with the question of sound public policy and the question of accountability and sound budgeting practices.

The bill that has been tabled is approximately 880 pages long. It is what is called an omnibus bill. For any Canadians who might be watching right now, that means that the government has taken items that are normally part of a budget and has added to them legislative proposals on a wide variety of other subjects that are not typically part of a budget bill.

I would respectfully suggest to all my colleagues and to all Canadians that this is an inappropriate practice, and there are some solid reasons for that.

First and foremost is one of respecting the democratic process. When a budget is tabled in the House, of course, members of Parliament debate the items in that budget and determine the proper and appropriate economic blueprint for the year ahead, which is what Canadians have sent them to do. That includes raising revenue and spending revenue and other measures that have to do with the running of our country, fiscally and economically. In order to debate that budget properly, we need to have subjects in that budget that lend themselves to that debate.

When a government, such as the one here, throws into that budgetary process items that have no business being in that budget, it cripples the debate, and it causes parliamentarians to have to vote on items that are not budgetary in nature. We cannot then have a proper, full debate on issues that are very important.

In some ways, I think Bill C-9 is a classic example of one of the major problems of the current government, which is that it has a fundamental disrespect for Parliament and a fundamental disrespect for the institutions of government in this country.

Of course, this is not the first time the current government has illustrated this disrespect. It has prorogued Parliament twice when it has found it inappropriate or uncomfortable to debate the issues Canadians send us here to debate. It has used the budget process before to engage in this kind of inappropriate behaviour.

We all remember back in 2008 that the current government used the budgetary process as a political attack--a political attack on the public service, a political attack on pay equity, a political attack on women, and a political attack on political parties--by trying to ram through a budget in the fall of 2008 that was as much an aggressive document of political ideology as it was one of sound budget.

I want to highlight for Canadians a couple of those inappropriate measures in this budget, and there are many. These are some of the more egregious ones.

First, the current government has seen fit to put in provisions that would seriously and significantly impair the environmental assessment process at the federal level in this country. They are in the budget. Now, Canadians might ask what an environmental assessment process has to do with a budget. If Canadians asked that question, they would be asking an astute question that I think exists on this side of the House, which the government does not seem to want to answer.

I want to briefly summarize this environmental assessment process. It exempts certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessments, period. It pre-empts a review of the environmental review process in June 2010. It allows the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It weakens public participation. It enables the removal of the assessment of energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and transfers that jurisdiction to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Let me repeat that. It takes the review of energy projects away from an environmental assessment tribunal and has the projects reviewed by energy agencies. I think Canadians would find that shocking, particularly because, as we speak, there is an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that is gushing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It is creating what will no doubt be a century of environmental degradation and devastation. Why? It is coming out that there were weak regulatory and oversight procedures in the United States. In other words, the fox was in the henhouse.

Canadians, North Americans, and citizens of our world, I would argue, want projects to be analyzed in terms of their environmental sustainability and worth. That is not done by the very agencies whose job it is to try to pass those energy projects. It is a clear conflict of interest.

This budget also includes the privatization of part of the business of Canada Post. One might ask what that has to do with the budget. Why is there any place in this budget for a provision that would send the international mail provision of Canada Post off to the private sector? Again, it is because what the government wants to do is put ideological and political measures into the budgetary process to try to have them passed as a confidence measure. Government members know, as all Canadians know, that the Liberal opposition in this country will pass anything to avoid an election. That is putting narrow political partisan interests ahead of good public policy, and I think it is lamentable.

I want to talk about the budget from a straight budgetary point of view, because there are a lot of bad measures on their own in this budget. For instance, as has been spoken about, $57 billion of EI premiums have been taken from workers and employers in this country—

[Oil Spills, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as we watch the ongoing environmental devastation caused by the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, now is the time for Canada to take proactive measures to prevent similar disasters from damaging Canadian shores.

We know oil spills are ecological disasters that impact entire ecosystems. They spread damage over thousands of kilometres of ocean and shoreline. They have a catastrophic impact, as fisheries are wiped out and communities are devastated and their damage lasts for decades, if not centuries.

We also know they are inevitable. Wherever oil is drilled or transported in tankers, accidents will happen. The question is not if, but when. On British Columbia's pristine coastline, this is far too high a price to pay.

Last year I introduced a bill to ban oil tankers in sensitive waters. I hope all members of the House support this effort at disaster prevention.

The government must also permanently legislate a moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in B.C. and the Arctic. The short-term economic benefit of offshore drilling is outweighed many times over by the economic impact of the inevitable spill and the permanent damage to our coastal ecosystem that would certainly result.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008 the hon. member's party came out clearly in favour of the government's $50 billion of corporate tax cuts. Liberals kept that position in 2009 when only the New Democrats stood in the House and said that massive corporate tax cuts in this fiscal economic climate would be irresponsible. I noticed that recently the Liberal Party has seen the light and is now adopting the New Democrat position. I also note that members of his party voted for the last budgets and I anticipate his party will likely vote for the budget this time as well.

Could the hon. member tell Canadians why they should have any faith in the Liberal Party when it campaigned for corporate tax cuts and voted for budgets, yet claims it does not support the principles underlined in those budgets?

[The Economy, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 518. The motion gives us an opportunity to debate competing visions for the economy, jobs and fair taxation systems in our country.

The New Democrat vision for the economy is very different from the government's. In the view of the New Democrats, we need to focus on job creation. We need to focus on creating and building a strong domestic economy. We need to develop an industrial strategy that will build a sustainable economy for the future, one that fuels economic growth by investing in green technology, green jobs and renewable energy and one that is built on a commitment to the principle of fair trade and a fair, just distribution of the wealth of our nation.

The New Democrats believe that the path to economic prosperity is built on creating a strong working class, a strong middle class. In that respect, we will create a truly strong economy. The bottom line is New Democrats believe the true measure of any functioning economy is to ask whether it benefits the majority of the people who take part in that economy. In this respect, New Democrats believe that any sound economic policy must benefit hard-working Canadian families.

We also believe in an economy where no one is left behind. That is why we always analyze every economic proposal, by looking at how it will affect the must vulnerable among us, our seniors, our children, our disabled. We know that the strongest chain is built on ensuring we take care of the weakest link.

The Conservative vision for the economy is very different. The Conservative government believes in shifting taxes from corporations to individuals and families. The Conservatives have continued the Liberal corporate tax cuts that began in the 1990s, which the Liberal speaker already highlighted. In the last budget, $6 billion were allocated for banks and oil companies in our country, and $6 billion has been given by the government to British Columbia and Ontario in incentives for those provinces to bring in the HST, which results in a huge tax shift from corporations to every family in those two provinces.

The Conservative government believes in more competition, but less co-operation, in more taxes like HST on families and less taxes on corporations and in more environmental degradation and less regulation in the environmental sector.

I want to talk for a minute on deregulation. The government in the budget before the House has move to exempt federal projects from environmental assessments. Right now we probably have the worst environmental disaster, perhaps in the world's history, going on in the Gulf of Mexico. Everybody knows that this is caused in large part by a failure to regulate the economic development of offshore drilling companies. What does the government want to do? At the very time that is going on, the government wants to take environmental assessments away from the Environmental Assessment Board and give it to whom? The National Energy Board. That is exactly the kind of misplaced, misguided policy that resulted in hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil being spewed into the Gulf every day of every week for the last three weeks.

The government has refused to support important measures to prevent another global meltdown in the financial services sector, touring the world to protect the banks of our country instead of touring the world to ensure there is not another financial disaster.

Before expanding further on these competing visions, I want to talk a bit about credibility. I was struck by the Liberal speaker who criticized the government for its corporate tax cuts. In the 2008 campaign and for the last two years the Liberal Party has been in favour of the corporate tax cuts proposed by the government. The ability of the Liberals to flip-flop, engage in crass opportunism and to say whatever they think is popular continues to shock all Canadians, I think.

I am glad to see the Liberals are finally supporting what the New Democrats have been saying for the last two years, which is in this economy, further corporate tax cuts are absolutely the wrong way to go.

Since the last election, every New Democrat member of Parliament has risen numerous times in the House to talk about building an economy that works for Canadians. We have talked about our plan to create jobs, to build an economy to emerge from the recession based on ensuring every Canadian who wants to contribute can have a well-paying, productive job. The economy is built on employment.

We have talked about our plan to build a green economy. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona has stood in the House time and time again and said that we do not have to choose between the economy and the environment. That is flawed thinking by members opposite that falsely tells Canadians there is a dichotomy between those two things. All thinking Canadians know that the environment is our economy. Without clean water, land or air, without raw natural capital, there is no economic activity. New Democrats understand that, but the government does not.

We have talked about our plan to foster an educated, skilled workforce to increase our competitiveness. I note the motion talks about improved competitiveness. I can tell everyone what we can do to be competitive in the decades ahead. We can ensure that every child, teenager and young adult has access to an affordable education so we build a country with skilled, educated people. That is how to built a modern economy in the world of today.

New Democrats have spoken about our plan to tackle poverty and help the unemployed.

I am looking at page 281 of the Conservative government's budget, where it estimates the stimulative effects of various ways to invest a government dollar. It says that for every $1 invested in housing, it returns $1.40 to the economy. Every dollar invested in low-income households and the unemployed returns $1.50 to the economy. Every $1 invested in reducing EI premiums adds a factor of 50¢. What has the government done? It has increased EI premiums.

Here is the kicker. For every $1 invested in corporate income tax cuts, it returns 20¢. The government spends $1 in corporate income tax cuts and gets back 20¢. That is from its budget document. What does this motion call for? Encouraging investment in Canada through lower corporate tax rates. That is what it wants to do. For every $1 it takes from hard-working Canadians, it wants to give it to corporations and turn that $1 paid by Canadians into 20¢. That is not sound economic management. That is foolishness.

We have risen to engage in a constructive and rational debate on the economy because Canadians want the government to engage in a respectful debate to fix our economy. Instead, the Conservatives respond with insulting and overblown rhetoric to dismiss any other idea or perspective on the economy.

I heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre call the New Democrats socialists. He called us isolationists. Invective is the lowest form of argument. It is name calling. Calling New Democrats isolationists is simply a straw man argument. Opposing free trade with countries like Colombia does not mean Canadians and the New Democrats do not believe we should engage in trade. Of course we do. It is nonsense for the government to suggest otherwise. What we do believe in is fair trade.

I want to point out that the government wants to sign free trade agreements, build an economic plan on free trade and have a trade agreement with Colombia, a narco state that has the dubious distinction of murdering the highest number of trade unionists in the world. The government wants to trade with that country. That is the best country it can find? That is the cornerstone of its economic trade policy? It should go back to the bargaining table.

New Democrats believe we can build country of fiscal prudence that has social justice. Tommy Douglas balanced his budget 10 years in a row. Allan Blakeney left a surplus when he left government in Saskatchewan. New Democrats have balanced their budgets the highest percentage of time for every year of government in the history of Canada. It was the Department of Finance that studied this. The highest deficits in Canadian history have been Conservative deficits, Brian Mulroney and the current finance minister.

In terms lecturing any party in the House about sound policy, the Conservatives should take a lesson from the New Democrats.

[May 27th, 2010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question about the government's funding cuts for victims' services and the failure of its crime agenda to meet the real needs of victims.

I asked this question in the House on April 19. The very next day, the victims' ombudsman appeared at the public safety committee and testified about what the government should do to support victims in this country.

I want to start by recognizing that all members of Parliament are concerned about victims. The current government frequently claims that it is the only party that cares about victims. Canadians know that this is not true. In fact, this kind of divisive Conservative politics actually hurts victims of crime by diverting attention from their real needs. New Democrats want to work toward helping victims of crime and toward making our communities safer.

Of course, the truth is that all New Democrats care about victims of crime. The NDP has long been the party that has stood up for the marginalized and those whose voices are not heard. We have always recognized that most crime is directed at the poorest and most vulnerable among us. That is why we are the only party that consistently fights for policies that help to improve the economic and social conditions of Canadians. I am proud of my party's history on this issue.

I rise today to ask the government to re-evaluate its crime policy and its narrow focus on punishment and to refocus its efforts on meeting the real needs of victims.

This government's crime agenda is pushing Canada toward a U.S.-style prison system that is expensive and ineffective. It wants to lock up more Canadians for longer. Meanwhile, the government is cutting back on rehabilitation programs, and it is failing to address the crisis of widespread mental illness and addiction in our society.

Canadians know that these policies do not work. If they did, the United States would be the safest country on earth. It is not. The United States' model is expensive and it does nothing to lower the crime rate. In fact, many U.S. states are now moving in the opposite direction of this government.

The current government justifies its crime agenda by saying that it meets the needs of victims. This too is false. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of Steve Sullivan, who was appointed by the current government to serve as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

Mr. Sullivan said:

Sentencing and the “get tougher on crime” agenda will not meet the real needs of victims of crime...

He said:

[S]entencing is important to families....But it can't be seen or sold as something that will meet their needs, because their needs are much more basic than that. Realistically, their needs won't be met by whether the offender gets five years or ten years.

The verdict is in. Longer sentences and the so-called tough-on-crime agenda are not what victims are calling for.

What then should the government be doing to meet victims' needs?

It should reconsider its refusal to fund child advocacy centres. For two years in a row, the ombudsman went to the government and asked for funding to set up these centres across the country. He asked for $5 million for the project. Child advocacy centres provide services to child victims, such as young victims of sexual abuse.

These centres would prevent crimes. We know that untreated sexual abuse is one of the factors that leads to one becoming a sexual abuser in the future. However, this government said no.

Just as it reconsidered its decision to cut $3 million from the victims of crime initiative--I see that the government just this week restored the funds after the NDP called exactly for that, and I commend the government for listening to us--the current government should reverse its decision to close prison farms. It should add money to addictions and mental health services both inside prisons and in our communities, and it should listen to the many experienced corrections officials who know that rehabilitation makes us far safer than does punishment.

My questions for the government are simple.

Will it refocus its crime agenda to meet the real needs of victims? Will it commit $5 million to implement Mr. Sullivan's request for child advocacy centres for child victims of crime, and if not, why not?

[Public Safety, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is the same minister who costed the two-for-one bill at $90 million and 24 hours later said that it was $2 billion.

The irony is that one of the main topics at the G20 will be how to get government spending under control. I am sure one of our lessons will be not to hold the G8 or G20.

From the two locations to the locking down of Canada's busiest city in a critical tourist season, the government's handling of this event has been sloppy and irresponsible. In the end, it is Canadians who will be left paying for Conservative errors.

Could the government explain why these meetings will end up costing more than double any previous G8, G20 summits?

[Public Safety, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of holding the G8 and G20 summits in Canada are becoming incomprehensible. In March Canadians were told that it would cost $179 million to hold these two meetings. Now, only two months later, that price is $930 million, five times the original amount. With the government in deficit, that means another $1 billion will be added to our national debt.

Could the government explain to Canadians why two meetings over four days will cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion?

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express to the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on behalf of all members of the House our appreciation for the work he has done in this place. He is an example to us all with his intelligent approach to justice. He was the minister of public security in Quebec and he brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to these issues.

He is absolutely correct. The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The primary goal of conditional sentencing is simply to reduce the reliance upon incarceration. The conditional sentence provides an opportunity to further incorporate restorative justice concepts into the sentence process by encouraging those who have caused harm to acknowledge this fact and to make reparation. It seeks once again to get at the underlying causes of the behaviour.

I was in Athens, Ontario last night meeting with some wonderful people who talked about prison farms. They told me that a lot of offenders are people who have simply done something wrong. They are not necessarily bad people; they are people who need correcting. Conditional sentencing is an important tool in helping people correct their behaviour, and this makes us all safer.

[Criminal Code, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government has been anything but transparent and forthcoming on the issue of the cost of its crime bills. For the last year the government has utterly refused to provide an estimate of the cost of its crime bills. For the last six months it has taken one-third of the staff of the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost out these bills.

One bill cost $10 billion. This bill will add billions more. Mandatory minimums for people who have as few as five marijuana plants will put more people in prison and probably will cost billions of dollars more as well. It is not an exaggeration to say that Canadians can measure the cost of the government's, what I would call, dumb on crime approach, to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

In terms of cost, I do not think that is where Canadians want to put their money, particularly when it will not make communities safer.