Fin Donnelly

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in 2002, when the Liberal government at that time launched its consultations on lawful access, it received feedback from the Privacy and Information Commissioners. Some of the feedback said:

The proposed measures go far beyond what is necessary to maintain existing capabilities and authorities in the face of modern communications technology.

With that feedback, I wonder why the Liberal government continued down the path of creating legislation measures and why now today the Liberals criticize the current legislation, Bill C-30, which is in front of us. In their legislation, it contained warrantless access provisions and intercept ready standards for TSPs. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment on why the sudden change in tune and approach here.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that a tripartite agreement is fundamental in developing a sound relationship with first nations.

As the parliamentary secretary referenced, I am from British Columbia, from New Westminster—Coquitlam. I have worked a long time with first nations and one of the most fundamental elements of working with first nations is developing a relationship. Developing a relationship takes time. It means establishing trust, and that is something that must be done over a long period of time. However, once we have that trust and relationship, and once we have built those agreements, we need to take action .

It is not like we do not know. As I pointed out in my speech, the Auditor General over the past 10 years has pointed out time and time again the specifics that we need to do to address the systemic, fundamental problems of not only education but poverty that exists on first nation reserves.

We know this. We need to build on the agreements, the partnerships that exist, and we need immediate concrete action today.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what Canada's New Democrats or an NDP government would do. We would commit to removing the punitive 2% funding cap that exists today that focuses on the current inequities, which is what I think is holding back putting the funding into a quality education system for every aboriginal first nations child across this country. That is what we would commit to, that is what we have been asking the government to commit to and that is what needs to happen.

We have heard the parliamentary secretary and others comment on the funding that has been put into first nations education. What is recognized is that it is inadequate. We need the 2% cap removed so we can address the fundamentals that go along with education and address even the poverty issues that exist on reserves for bands across the country.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I would like to acknowledge those colleagues who have worked so hard on this issue. We have heard from many of them in the House already.

I rise to speak in support of today's opposition motion. The motion calls on the government to adopt Shannen's Dream by the following:

(a) declaring that all first nation children have an equal right to high-quality, culturally-relevant education; (b) committing to provide the necessary financial and policy supports for first nations education systems; (c) providing funding that will put reserve schools on par with non-reserve provincial schools; (d) developing transparent methodologies for school construction, operation, maintenance and replacement; (e) working collaboratively with first nation leaders to establish equitable norms and formulas for determining class sizes and for the funding of educational resources, staff salaries, special education services and indigenous language instruction; and (f) implementing polices to make the first nation education system, at a minimum, of equal quality to provincial school systems.

Shannen Koostachin of the Attawapiskat First Nation had a dream: to provide first nations children and youth with culturally-based education in safe, comfortable schools, or “comfy” schools as she called them. In her short lifetime, Shannen became the voice for first nations reserve children who had been deprived of their right to an education.

For 10 years, the community of Attawapiskat fought for a school to be built on its reserve. It refused to accept that the best the federal government could do was portables set up on grounds that were so toxic and so contaminated that children were actually passing out from the benzene fumes.

For a time, it seemed that the community's efforts would pay off and that a school would finally be built for the children of Attawapiskat. However, in 2007, the federal government reneged on its commitment, choosing instead to continue the chronic mismanagement and underfunding of the education of first nations children.

The lack of adequate first nations education is inextricably linked to the issue of widespread and persistent poverty. In Canada, being aboriginal often means being poor. One in four first nations children grows up in poverty, that is 25%.

Why is this the case? There are a number of factors that contribute to these unacceptably high rates of poverty. The unemployment rate of aboriginals is almost 10 percentage points above that of the non-aboriginal population. Aboriginal youth are less likely to complete secondary education, as my colleague from Manicouagan pointed out earlier today in his speech. Living and health conditions are also well below Canadian averages.

It has been documented that aboriginal people have shorter life expectancies, in part due to higher risks of diseases, such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

We know that we can break the cycle of poverty through education.

We must also understand the importance of culturally-based education. During the era of residential schools, aboriginal children were forced to assimilate into European-Canadian society. Their cultural traditions and languages were taken away from them in what some would describe as a cultural genocide.

Today, educators of first nations children face the task of recovering the cultural heritage of first nations so that the children can once again take pride in their heritage.

In my riding, there are two first nation communities, the Kwikwetlem First Nation and the Qayqayt First Nation.

The Kwikwetlem First Nation takes its name from the salmon that historically travelled up the Coquitlam River. Kwikwetlen literally means red fish up the river. Its culture is similar to other Stó:lo and northwest coast Salish groups. Its traditions are closely tied to watersheds and the life cycle of the salmon. After contact with the Europeans, its spiritual, linguistic and cultural traditions were challenged. It lost its right to sell and trade salmon, its children were placed in residential schools and a system of regulations and protocols handed down by Ottawa were imposed on its lands. The process of regaining these rights and traditions is a lengthy and complex one.

I will now talk about the Qayqayt First Nation, which is historically located in New Westminster. At the end of the 19th century, there were some 400 members of that nation. However, by 1913, only one orphan band member remained. The federal government seized most of the band's reserve lands and the orphan child, Marie Lee Bandura, was sent to a residential school where she would be punished for speaking her native language. The burden of shame stayed with her throughout her lifetime. Her daughter, Chief Rhonda Larrabee, eventually uncovered her family's heritage and, after a lengthy process, she was able to reclaim her status as a member of the Qayqayt First Nation.

The stories of the Kwikwetlem and the Qayqayt First Nations demonstrate that today, more than ever, the federal government must work in partnership with first nations across Canada to ensure that first nations children have access to culturally relevant education so that students can re-engage with and take pride in their traditions, languages and cultures.

We know what the challenges are and we know what the solutions are. These solutions have been reiterated time and time again over the past two decades. Over the course of former auditor general Sheila Fraser's 10-year mandate, her office produced 31 audit reports on aboriginal issues. In these reports, Ms. Fraser highlighted the gaps between first nations and non-first nations education, stating that, “conditions are getting worse instead of getting better”.

She also noted that between 1991 and 1999 at least 22 studies recommended the following measures to improve the quality of first nations education: address retention of aboriginal languages; enhance curriculum to meet first nations needs; increase funding for special education, counselling and library services; address inadequacies in special services, technologies and guidance clinics; and improve teacher training.

In her final report in 2011, Ms. Fraser criticized the government for failing to take action on her previous reports, noting that, despite over 30 reports in the past decade, little action had been taken by successive governments to address the inequality.

This February, the national panel on first nations elementary and secondary education released its final report following through on its mandate to consult with first nations communities to develop recommendations on how to improve education for first nations children. The report called for the co-creation of a first nations education act, which would outline responsibilities for each partner in the system and recognize and protect the first nations child's right to their culture and identity, a quality education, funding for the system and first nation control of first nation education.

Another of the report's recommendations called for statutory funding that is needs based, predictable, sustainable and specifically designated for education.

Report after report has called on the federal government to take action to protect the rights of the first nation child. How many more dozens of reports are required before the government will take substantive action?

I believe that the national attention paid to the Attawapiskat this past winter has served as a wake-up call to the government. I certainly would like to acknowledge my hon. colleague, the member for Timmins--James Bay, for his tireless work and for drawing attention to this important issue.

The first nations summit held in Ottawa just this past January was a step in the right direction. Now it is time for the government to keep its word and take immediate concrete action. This begins by rebuilding trust between first nations and the government and working in partnership to break through the status quo.

I hope that today all members of the House will come together in agreement that it is time for change.

I will finish by reading into Hansard the words of Shannen Koostachin:

I would like to talk to you what it is like to be a child who grows up never seeing a real school. I want to tell you what it is like to never have the chance to feel excited about being educated. That's why some of our students begin to give up in grade 4 and grade 5. They just stop going to school. Imagine that. Imagine a child who feels they have no future even at that young age. We want our younger brothers and sisters to go to school thinking that school is a time for hopes and dreams of the future. Every kid deserves this.

That was Shannen's Dream and we need to make that a reality.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague would recognize that one of the best tools on the path to self-reliance is an education and that one of the best ways to improve the economic situation of any community is by improving education. That in fact is why National Chief Shawn Atleo has focused so heavily on improving education for first nations across this country.

I am wondering if the member could comment about removing the 2% cap on funding. There was a question about that earlier. Will he commit now to removing that 2% cap?

[Petitions, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by thousands of people in the Lower Mainland who are opposed to the delivery of jet fuel within the Fraser River estuary.

The Fraser is a designated Canadian heritage river and is a significant bird flyway. Ninety per cent of the wetlands have been impacted by human activity. The Fraser is one of the largest salmon rivers in the world and is vital to the survival of Pacific salmon, sturgeon and 70 other fish species.

The petitioners view the delivery of jet fuel as a threat to wild salmon, migratory wildlife and the health of the ecosystem. They join with the city of Richmond in opposing this proposal.

[Fisheries and Oceans, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling that the government must protect orca whales. The government stubbornly appealed the original decision, wasting taxpayers' dollars.

The minister was looking for loopholes to avoid taking responsibility. The courts have been clear. Canadians know it. The government just does not get it. There is nothing discretionary about protecting endangered species.

Will the minister stop wasting taxpayers' dollars, do his job and protect the orcas?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what is really at the heart of the motion is the political will to address well-paying Canadian jobs and maintaining that focus in our country. We are looking for what we think are straightforward amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

The will of the government has clearly been shown to be on the side of the employer, for example, in the cases of Air Canada and Canada Post. We are now facing a similar situation in London. There does not seem to be a clear, specific proposal from the government on how we are to make changes.

We are offering specific changes. I outlined them in my speech. We are talking about explicit, transparent criteria, looking at public hearings and public disclosure. These are the kinds of changes that we need to see from the government.

In 2010 we heard that there was agreement. We need to hear what those specifics look like if there is to be any political will gained by Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it seems that there is one set of rules for individuals and perhaps small businesses. There are many hoops and criteria in front of them if they want access to capital and money to improve their lives. However, there is another set of rules for larger, often highly profitable corporations in the country.

With the motion we have put forward, we are talking about the question of fairness, accountability and transparency. We want to see a clear set of criteria attached when we look at foreign investment in our country. That is only fair. It applies to individuals and small businesses. Why should it not apply to larger corporations?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his good points. I would also like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for her tireless work on this issue and for bringing this motion forward today.

I rise today to speak in support of this opposition day motion. The motion calls on the House to condemn the plant closures of Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario and Papiers White Birch in Quebec City. Together, these two plant closures have resulted in the loss of over 1,000 good quality, family-supporting jobs.

The motion also calls on the government to table within 90 days draft amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that foreign buyers are held to public and enforceable commitments on the net benefit to Canada and on the protection of Canadian jobs. Canada's New Democrats believe it is time that Canada take a strong stand on the issue of foreign investment, in particular to bring clarity to the vague concept of net benefit to Canada.

In the past several months, far too many Canadians have experienced firsthand the consequences of allowing foreign companies to take over Canadian based companies with no strings attached.

When Electro-Motive chose to close its doors, 450 jobs were lost after employees stood up and said no to a 50% wage cut and reduction in benefits. Another 600 jobs were lost when Papiers White Birch shut down its mill in Quebec City after workers refused to accept a 21% wage reduction and cutbacks to their pension plan, which would have seen the value of workers' pensions decrease by 45% to 65%.

Unfortunately, Electro-Motive and White Birch are not the only factory closures in recent months. On February 2, AstraZeneca announced that it would close its pharmaceutical research and development facility in Montreal, with 132 jobs lost. Just days before a dryer manufacturer, Mabe, also based in Montreal, announced it would close its doors with 700 jobs lost by 2014.

Another 750 workers at Rio Tinto Alcan in Alma, Quebec have been locked out since January 1. Moreover, last year, 900 workers at U.S. Steel were locked out for 11 months. Also, 3,000 workers were on strike for over a year at Vale's plant in Sudbury and Port Colbourne in Ontario. Another 200 workers were on strike for over 18 months at Vale's plant in Voisey's Bay, Newfoundland.

Thousands of Canadian workers in the past year have stood up to fight cuts to their salaries and pensions. For many, it meant standing on the picket line day after day for months on end. For some, the consequences meant being thrown out of work just after Christmas.

The federal government seems to be an all-too-willing partner in this race to the bottom for Canadian workers' wages and pensions.

Last year we saw how workers at Canada Post and Air Canada rejected their companies' offers to slash wages and pensions. When the federal government intervened, did it come to the assistance of the thousands of workers who were fighting for improved salaries and pensions? Did it come to the rescue? Who accepted having the next generation of workers as a second tier not deserving the same level of compensation and benefits?

The government took the side of the employers and supported measures to claw back salaries and pensions. It intervened in the collective bargaining process, taking away workers' bargaining rights by mandating the workers back to work.

Members of this place remember all too well the long hours of debate on the government's draconian, heavy-handed back-to-work legislation.

It is clear that the Conservative majority government has been nothing but bad news for Canadian workers. Only Canada's New Democrats have been standing up and fighting against this regression in workers' rights and compensation. If the government's intervention in labour disputes were not bad enough, it has gone so far as to give no-strings-attached tax breaks to companies, which can decide at the drop of a hat to close down operations and move good quality Canadian jobs to other countries.

The Conservative government's job creation strategy is simply not working. While the government prioritizes slashing the corporate tax rate, unemployment levels remain high and investment is lagging. For every percentage point the Conservatives cut the corporate tax rate, the government loses $2 billion in annual revenue. Over the past 12 years, six years under the Conservatives and six under the Liberals, the corporate tax rate has dropped from 28% to 15%, which has meant that some $26 billion in revenue has been lost.

Now the Conservatives are trying to convince Canadians that we can no longer afford to let seniors retire at age 65, that our universal public health care system is unsustainable, that we cannot afford to eradicate poverty among seniors or provide funding for first nations education. This is ridiculous and incredible.

Governance is about priorities and it is clear that the Conservatives' priorities leave far too many Canadians out in the cold. The problem we have seen time and time again is that the rule book is too thin when it comes to the takeover of large companies operating on Canadian soil. The Investment Canada Act in its current form is simply not up to the task of ensuring that Canadian jobs are protected in the case of foreign takeovers. However, I believe there is a willingness among members of the House to make changes to the Investment Canada Act.

In 2010, Canada's New Democrats moved an opposition motion calling on the Government of Canada to take immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure that the views of those most directly affected by any takeover would be considered and that any decision on whether a takeover delivered a net benefit to Canada would be transparent. The motion passed unanimously, with the support of the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals.

Today, I hope members of the House will again come together and agree it is time that the process for foreign takeovers be made more public, more transparent and more accountable. This would help Canadians believe that their government is acting in their best interests.

Our proposed changes to the Investment Canada Act are measured and reasonable. We propose reducing the threshold for investments subject to review to $100 million. We propose providing explicit, transparent criteria for the net benefit test to Canada, with an emphasis on the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions and new capital investments. We propose requiring public hearings that would allow for community input into decisions on both the assessment of net benefit and the conditions to apply to the investment. We propose ensuring public disclosure and the enforcement of all commitments that are undertaken by potential investors. Furthermore, we believe it is time to examine the current loophole in the act that prevents the act from applying in cases where a foreign company takes over another foreign company operating on Canadian soil.

Since this act came into force in 1985, only two of the 1,500 takeovers have been rejected. Why is this? We do not really know. We do not know how or why the government deemed 99% of takeovers to be of net benefit to Canada. There are no criteria defining what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, nor does the act permit Canadians to know how the government arrives at its decisions on this.

It is time to make this act work for Canadians. Members of the House agreed in 2010 that the act required changes.

Today, Canada's New Democrats are calling on the government to table draft amendments within 90 days. I call on all members of the House to support the need for changes to the Investment Canada Act and to support our call for the government to bring these changes forward in 90 days.