Greg Rickford

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for again representing the issues of folks in the north. I had the privilege of working with him on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and it was a pleasure.

In terms of committee process, I am sure the member received a briefing, but what were the stakeholders saying about this issue and how important do they feel it is that this process move along? I was wondering if he could answer.

[Criminal Records Act Review, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to join in this important debate on the motion from the hon. member for Surrey North, and I thank her for this opportunity to speak to it.

Recently, many Canadians were made aware that the current system of pardons in this country might not work in a way that always and unequivocally puts public safety first. Canadians were outraged when they learned that sex offender Graham James, for example, received a pardon. They are understandably concerned that other notorious criminals may also get a rubber stamp. That is why our Conservative government took swift and necessary action last spring.

Bill C-23A gives the National Parole Board the tools it needs to decide if granting a pardon is warranted, and it ensures that the waiting period to apply for a pardon better reflects the severity of the crimes committed. That is not all. I urge all members of this House to support the remaining reforms as they are contained Bill C-23B.

Our government has made listening to the views of Canadians and especially the voices of victims one of our top priorities since we were first elected in 2006. We have, in fact, heard from victims and victims groups that support these reforms.

I would like to first commend the hon. member for her ongoing work on behalf of victims and for bringing this important matter forward.

As we heard, the legislation governing the pardon system was such that a pardon was granted to nearly all ex-offenders who applied for one. Let me put that into concrete terms. According to the National Parole Board, just 2% of all applications for a pardon were rejected in 2008-09. That compares with only 1% in 2007-08 and again a mere 1% in 2006-07. In 2006-07, only 103 of 14,851 applications were rejected. The following year, only 175 of 25,021 applications for a pardon received by the National Parole Board were, in fact, rejected.

Those numbers raise some troubling questions and concerns for many Canadians. Many Canadians asked whether the current system simply operated as a rubber stamp. Others wanted to know whether there were enough safeguards in place. These were the issues we needed to examine very carefully, with an eye to making sure that the needs of victims and the safety and security of Canadians always comes first. We remain committed to ensuring that the pardon process is not a rubber stamp. That is why we brought Bill C-23 forward.

We advanced the most critical aspects of pardon reform before the summer break, but we have much more work to do. I call on the opposition to continue the work we accomplished in June and to side with victims and law-abiding Canadians and not with criminals.

The general rule of thumb at the time was that people convicted of summary offences were eligible for a pardon three years after finishing their sentences, provided they had not been convicted of any other offences during that period. Pardons in these cases were automatic, and the National Parole Board had absolutely no discretion to refuse an application.

For those convicted of more serious indictable offences, the waiting period was a bit longer, five years, and applicants had to demonstrate that they had had good conduct. However, each application was either accepted or rejected using exactly the same criteria, regardless of the nature of the offence. Again, it was a rubber stamp. There was no discretion to weigh the impact on victims. There was no discretion to say that granting a pardon in cases such as those involving sex offences against children might not be appropriate, despite the fact that such acts often leave a lasting and devastating scar on the victim, a scar that may never heal.

We heard from victims who, along with many other Canadians, questioned the fairness of a pardon system that would allow sex offenders to virtually wipe the judicial slate clean after as few as three years.

We heard from many Canadians who told us that some offenders should perhaps not be granted pardons at all.

All of this is why our government introduced Bill C-23, legislation that would implement fundamental reforms to help ensure, among other things, that the National Parole Board would have more discretion when reviewing applications for a pardon.

The changes our government proposed, and were approved by Parliament as Bill C-23A, allowed the board to examine factors such as the nature, gravity and the duration of an offence in reaching its decisions for an offender convicted of an indictable offence as well as the circumstances surrounding the commission of that offence, of course, information relating to an applicant's criminal history.

Other changes will mean the waiting period is now 10 years in the case of a serious personal injury offence, including manslaughter, when the applicant was sentenced to two years or more. The waiting period is now 10 years for those convicted of a sexual offence related to a child and prosecuted by way of indictment. Other applicants convicted of a sexual offence, prosecuted by summary conviction, must now wait five years. People convicted of an indictable offence will need to prove to the National Parole Board that receiving a pardon will contribute to his or her rehabilitation and not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Such changes are necessary in order to give the National Parole Board the tools it needs to ensure our justice system is not put into disrepute. Because we owe it to all Canadians, especially victims of serious crimes, to ensure that the system puts public safety first and the interests of victims first, we moved quickly and responsibly to bring forward these reforms which are tough but also fair.

Our government believes they were necessary because our justice system must always include compassion for victims.

I would like to reiterate once again that our government is prepared to take further necessary steps to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in our justice system, and that victims of unfortunate serious crimes lie at the forefront of our judicial policy with respect to their protection.

Furthermore, our record reflects our commitment to protecting Canadians, taking action to stand up for victims and cracking down on crime.

I, therefore, urge all hon. members to support Motion No. 514 before us today and to continue to work with the government to ensure we have a pardon system that works the way it should. That is the way a pardon system should work and that is the way the House of Commons should work. I am glad to see in this instance such is the case.

I again thank the member for Surrey North for this great opportunity to speak to Motion No. 514 which is an important issue in my riding as well.

[Health Care System, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague in this place, a colleague in the great profession of nursing, for the privilege to speak to her motion today. Indeed, it is a great pleasure to speak to our government's commitment to support the development and adoption of quality innovations in our health care system.

First and foremost, the federal government contributes significant funding towards health care through the Canada health transfer. In 2010, our government will provide provincial and territorial government with $25.4 billion in cash support. The cash amount has grown by $1.4 billion since 2009-10 and our government remains fully committed to increasing the Canada health transfer by 6% each year until 2013-14.

By keeping our promises in fulfilling this commitment, we are assisting provinces and territories to fund their particular health priorities, including those areas listed in the motion from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. We are committed by the principles of the Canada Health Act to making Canada's population one of the healthiest in the world.

The adoption and appropriate use of health technology are crucial to achieving this objective.

Health technology is more than just a simple feature of the modern health care system; it is a reality that has repercussions on all aspects of the system.

New diagnostic tools allow for earlier detection of illnesses, which means treatment can begin sooner.

We are working to provide new treatment support for patients who previously had no treatment option, and approved treatments are leading to better survival rates and quality patient outcomes. New administration practices are supporting a more efficient use of health care providers and the use of interdisciplinary approaches to care.

In the area of electronic health records, technological developments are enabling healthcare providers, system administrators, and governments to implement faster and more efficient ways to store and manage patient information. This government is well aware of the significance of technological innovation in improving and maintaining the health of Canadians. It is with this in mind that the government has brought forward a number of policies and initiatives supporting the development, assessment, and adoption of health technologies.

This support begins first and foremost with the research and development activities that serve as the basis for innovation. Investment by the federal government in research and development activities takes several forms.

Private sector research is supported by generous tax concessions through tax credits for scientific research and experimental development.

Every year, this program provides over $4 billion in investment tax credits for over 18,000 claimants, approximately 75% of which are small businesses.

The OECD, an organization made up of the world's most industrialized nations, ranks Canada second out of all of its members in terms of tax breaks for every research and development dollar spent.

In an effort to fuel the ingenuity of Canada's best and brightest, and to drive the adoption of new technologies across this country, this government's science and technology strategy is also investing directly in health research. The health-related component of this strategy is primarily implemented through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The CIHR was created to provide targeted funding to priority health research, to train the next generation of health researchers, and to support the translation of research into practices, procedures, products, and services. CIHR serves a principal role in the development and growth of Canada's greatest asset, a highly skilled community of medical researchers. In recognition of CIHR's important role, the government has increased CIHR's research funding by $16 million. This investment will bring the CIHR's total research budget for 2010 to nearly $1 billion.

To ensure that the outcomes of research investment are appropriately protected and rewarded, Canada also maintains an intellectual property regime that mirrors those of the most generous in the world. From the date of filing, patented innovations receive protection for a period of 20 years. It is worth pointing out that in 2008 the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook ranked Canada second in the G7 for patent protection.

Through these combined measures, our government is demonstrating its ongoing commitment to a culture of science innovation. I am pleased, as a parliamentarian and as a nurse, to stand in this place and report that Canada's policies in support of health research have received such high praise from international bodies.

A key feature of this initiative is to ensure that e-health systems will one day be compatible from coast to coast to coast and be able to talk to each other. This presents an important and complex challenge for Canada's Health Infoway. We need the capacity to enable someone from Manitoba, for example, who happens to be in British Columbia receiving care to have his or her health record readily accessible to health care providers. The Government of Canada has to date invested $2.1 billion in the Infoway. Those investments have been critical in establishing a blueprint and standards for an electronic health records system, developing its key components, and enhancing our capacities in areas such as public health, surveillance, and telehealth.

To this end, in budget 2009, as part of Canada's economic action plan, of which we hear so much, our government has allocated $500 million to Infoway, and this investment will enable Infoway to focus on compatible systems, speed up the implementation of electronic records in physicians' offices, and develop linkages with hospital information systems and patient portals.

This continued investment of our government in electronic health has positioned Canada to reap the benefits of technological developments for the health of its citizens, and to strengthen the safety, quality, and efficiency of our health care system as a whole.

The introduction of new health care technologies is a delicate matter and one that carries real implications for patients, something that I and my colleague, as nurses, care deeply about.

This government wholly embraces the principle of innovation. But we must avoid falling into the trap of equating new with better. Being responsible in the choices we make in adopting technologies will help us to guarantee continued access to quality health care systems.

To do this, we need to have collaboration. This collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, and indeed our first nations governments, is of tremendous importance, since each jurisdiction is responsible for, and plays an important part in, the delivery of health care for its residents.

As I have noted, our government is an active supporter of science and innovation. It is prepared to stand behind policies that drive new health technologies from discovery to development.

I thank the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, my colleague in nursing, for this opportunity to speak to her important and well-crafted motion.

[Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to expand further on some of the challenges that Bill C-300 would present in its implementation. I will drill down, no pun intended, on at least seven substantive issues we have with Bill C-300.

I should say from the outset that the great Kenora riding is home to vast mineral assets, and in fact has one of the most productive gold mines in the world, operated by Goldcorp in Red Lake and Pickle Lake. Needless to say, constituents, families, communities, and corporations performing exploration and mining activities in the great Kenora riding have expressed serious concerns with respect to Bill C-300.

I am therefore pleased and honoured to speak to this bill on behalf of my constituents.

Many members of the House have pointed out certain practical issues that need to be considered, while recognizing the intent and the goal of this bill.

I want to reiterate that this government is a firm believer in corporate social responsibility. However, this bill is not the way to promote it.

Over the last year, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has heard from almost 70 witnesses on Bill C-300. Many witnesses have raised a number of practical issues with the bill, and these must be considered while recognizing the intent of the bill. I would like to highlight some of the more significant obstacles that they have raised regarding the effective implementation of the bill.

First, Bill C-300 does not appear to include any procedural safeguards to ensure that it is consistent with Canada's procedural fairness or even every Canadian's right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. For example, Bill C-300 would not require those conducting an examination to give notice or even consider evidence from the affected company. It would, however, permit complainants to give evidence against affected parties without subjecting themselves to cross-examination. Furthermore, this bill puts at stake the rights, privileges, and interests of an affected company.

Because a negative judgment under Bill C-300 would significantly affect a company's reputation and operations, we owe our Canadian companies the right to procedural fairness.

Second, Export Development Canada—EDC—uses its trade influence to encourage businesses to develop socially responsible practices and helps businesses implement them.

The categorical nature of the compliance standards set out in this bill would force EDC to immediately cut off any association with any Canadian business that fails to fulfill its corporate social responsibility.

This means that if Bill C-300 becomes law, EDC's ability to provide lending and insurance to companies in the extractive sector will be seriously compromised, without providing any real corporate social responsibility benefit.

Once again, if Bill C-300 is enacted, EDC's capacity to provide loans and insurance to companies in the extractive sector will be seriously compromised, and there will be no real corporate social responsibility benefit.

In the last year alone, EDC's support is estimated to have generated $61 billion in Canadian GDP, which amounts to 5¢ of every Canadian dollar, and sustained 642,000 jobs in communities across the country. When we consider that the extractive sector comprises one-third of EDC's total business volume, we can appreciate the impact that EDC's departure from the market would have on working families here at home. This clearly highlights the economically reckless and irresponsible nature in which this bill was conceived.

Third, the department already has two mechanisms in place to assist in the resolution of disputes: the National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor. Both of these mechanisms focus on improving the performance of Canadian companies. This allows for longer-term solutions that benefit all parties involved.

By comparison, Bill C-300 is largely punitive. Unfortunately, in many cases the Government of Canada does not have the leverage over extractive companies that the bill presumes. Junior companies, especially, often do not seek the government support this bill proposes to deny them. In these cases, the company would not be compelled to change its performance under the threat of Bill C-300.

The implication is that this bill would see changes we do not want, because a prejudicial regime such as that proposed by this reckless bill could serve only to encourage more companies to leave Canada.

Those companies might see the constructive mediation provided by the national contact point and the corporate social responsibility counsellor as a better way to enhance their performance and be more competitive.

That is what mining companies in Canada are saying about the bill. In fact, a number of witnesses also put forth that the bill would discourage companies from maintaining offices in Canada. Instead, they would relocate to another jurisdiction. Why risk such a result when we have a strategy that is working? That is the question.

The punitive framework of Bill C-300 contrasts with the constructive, productive, and effective mediation offered by the National Contact Point and the Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor.

Regrettably, Bill C-300 could be counterproductive to the existing mechanisms, since a company might not want to engage in the informal mediation if the information it provides could subsequently be used against it in a complaint under Bill C-300. It burns goodwill and good faith.

Fourth, the bill proposes changes to the Special Economic Measures Act. It is not clear why an act that deals with state-to-state relations would appear in a bill designed to regulate the activities of corporations.

Fifth, even if the consequential amendments that are proposed are applied domestically, the bill may constitute an extra-territorial application of Canadian law since it would be regulating the activities of Canadian companies outside Canada's jurisdiction.

Many countries, including many of our trading partners, would likely take issue with the patronizing implication that Canada viewed their laws as inferior. Likewise, it might harm diplomatic relations if we were to send teams of investigators into these countries, especially if they were in the process of conducting their own investigations.

Sixth, we have serious concerns about whether there is the constitutional authority to enact Bill C-300. The regulation of business, including issues relating to human rights and the environment, is constitutionally a matter for provincial jurisdiction, with regard to property and civil rights. Therefore, there is a serious risk that the regulatory scheme of complaints, examinations, and published findings envisioned by Bill C-300 would be found to be unconstitutional. Simply put, there does not appear to be any federal head of power that clearly authorizes Parliament to establish the regulatory scheme as proposed in Bill C-300.

Seventh, and finally, Canada's missions abroad provide critical advice on corporate social responsibility to Canadian companies. Bill C-300 would prevent our missions from engaging companies facing difficulties and would prevent us from helping to resolve their disputes.

For these reasons, we feel that the government's corporate social responsibility policy is a more effective way of helping Canadian extractive companies continue to develop a social licence to operate. As discussed in the past, building on Canada's commitment to the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and our country's National Contact Point, the government's strategy describes four specific initiatives for action that outline our commitment to promoting best practices for Canadian companies operating abroad.

The government has supported the development, outside government, of a multi-stakeholder Centre for Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility that will help the Canadian extractive sector to implement these voluntary performance guidelines in their operations abroad.

We applaud organizations like the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada who have developed e3 Plus, A Framework for Responsible Exploration, which is intended to complement established norms for corporate behaviour as exemplified by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Global Compact.

Our efforts promote corporate and social responsibility, both domestically and abroad. I ask all members from both sides of the floor for their support as we continue to take measures to ensure that Canadian companies can make the most of our global opportunities.

[Justice, June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP refuses to support the speedy passage of Bill C-23, meaning notorious criminals would remain eligible for pardons. Now I understand it has introduced its own bill, which is a far cry from our legislation. Neither victims nor law-abiding Canadians think it is acceptable for notorious criminals to be pardoned, while the opposition continues to play political games in Ottawa.

Could the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the latest move by the NDP?

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is breaking news from the Liberal caucus. Upon returning to Canada after 34 years abroad, the Liberal leader wants to meet with whom he calls “the Canadians”. Just visiting every province is what the Liberal leader thinks he needs to break through with “the Canadians”.

It is unclear what the Liberal leader wants to say to “the Canadians” that he has not already said, but maybe he plans to try some of his favourites: that he called the United States of America his “country”; that he might tell “the Canadians” he wants to raise their taxes; maybe he can tell “the Canadians” from northern Ontario about his opposition to scrapping the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, there is a good idea; or maybe he will remind “the Canadians” that he is embarrassed of our country and that he thinks our flag looks like a beer label.

On this side of the House we call them friends, neighbours and constituents. When the Liberal leader calls them “the Canadians”, he proves he is not really in it for “the Canadians”, he is just in it for himself.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, going around northern Ontario the past week or two, it is very clear that the mining sector is pleased with what this government is doing. They are concerned that they are not getting the support from MPs in other parts of northern Ontario.

I just want to ask the parliamentary secretary, who I co-chair the mining caucus with, if he can tell us what some of the specific things in this great bill would do for that mining sector and how we can help that important sector out in northern Ontario despite the lack of support from the members of Parliament across northern Ontario outside the great Kenora riding.

[Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer to two things, the history books and the fact that I worked on this in my legal practice. I was not around in the mid-1960s.

He raises an important question. I want to assure the member that I have dealt with the dimensions of this problem substantively I am pleased to report that settlements were made with Grassy Narrows First Nation. In fact, that river has gone under a tremendous transformation with the cleanup from all levels of government.

As part of the arrangements, the first nation now presides over some new territory on that beautiful river with one of the most amazing, if I can make my plug, fish camps there. There is great fishing there now and people are eating that fish. It is a wonderful place.

[Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will address this in English. Unfortunately, my French may not be well enough spontaneously to give some of the technical answers, but it is an important question.

The algae blooms can be found anywhere in the lake. As I pointed out in my speech, more than 55% of the phosphorous load, which leads to these blooms, comes in from the Rainy River Basin.

It is important the hon. member know that Lake of the Woods is in an interesting geographical location. It is actually an intersection, in water terms, for another important basin that I spoke of earlier, which feeds into Lake Winnipeg. As we know, they have had some serious problems over time with that, with the exact same problem of high phosphorous levels and corresponding algae blooms.

I hope that addresses the member's question.

[Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, so far, as I have said in my speech, I am very confident that our government is taking responsible steps to address the issues with respect to Lake of the Woods.

I am very confident in both ministers with respect to transboundary waters and their treatment of important and complex jurisdictional environmental matters with respect to rivers, watersheds and lakes.

I have full confidence moving forward, as do our constituents in our riding particularly on Lake of the Woods, that we are proceeding in a responsible manner and nothing is being overlooked.