Jamie Nicholls

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not deny the government's efforts to improve mental health services. However, the issue is two-fold. The government can have the right intentions and invest in programs but there is the other side of trying to convince people that not all criminals are evil people, that some have a mental illness. For example, there is the story of the girl who went through, I do not know, how many prisons for originally throwing an apple at a postman. She was obviously mentally ill but she was lost in the system.

When we have the social attitude that all criminals are bad and should be treated the same, we are not taking into account their mental illness, and that becomes a problem.

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my other colleagues have said, we will be supporting this bill but do have reservations about it.

I agree entirely with my colleague from Trois-Rivières when he says that sometimes the government portrays things only in black and white, pitting good against evil and not seeing all the shades of grey that might exist in the middle.

I would like to share a story. I was actually a victim of crime, so I have a personal take on this issue. In 1997, I was 25 years old and had just returned to Victoria, B.C. from a year of teaching English in South Korea. One night shortly after I got back, I think it was a few weeks later, I was at a friend's house party, someone whom I had gone to art school with. It was a peaceable party with art students and we were having a good time that night.

Around midnight two gentlemen came in. They were skinheads. I would estimate one was about 200 pounds, wore a white power t-shirt, was bald and had a lazy eye that went one way. He was not exactly the kind of guy that one would start a friendly conversation with.

Now the host of the party was uncomfortable. She wanted these gentlemen to leave. I took it upon myself that night to tell these gentlemen they were not welcome at the party and that they would have to go. Everything was fine, as they seemed to get the message and they were going to go. I was standing by the door, and as the two gentlemen were leaving one of them gave me what was called a sucker punch. He punched me in the head. He had a spike ring on and left a scar by my eye.

I was bleeding and in shock. The police came and arrests were made. Basically, as I was getting cleaned up in the bathroom downstairs, I realized that I had been physically assaulted. I immediately gave the police my witness statement.

After that, I waited. I waited in fear. I changed my look. I shaved my head. I did not want this guy to find me, because he was out on parole. I had just returned from a foreign country where I had been for a year. I was having trouble navigating the system at the time because I was experiencing reverse culture shock.

I want to add that I could have looked at the man who assaulted me as evil, but I had actually seen him in the neighbourhood quite a bit before I went to Korea and knew that he had a baby at home. I knew that his financial situation was not that good, because I saw him and his wife and his baby going to social services quite often, I guess to get their social services cheque. They were not exactly in a good situation.

The neighbourhood that we lived in was North Park, where I lived on Mason Street at the time. It was a rough-and-tumble neighbourhood. I can say that we both shared one thing at the time because we were both poor. I had used the bulk of the money I had made in South Korea to pay off my student loan, which was quite burdensome. Therefore, in some ways we were both victims of poverty, but he much worse. I had a university education, and I do not think he had even finished high school.

In that situation the damage was much more psychological for me than economic, and so throwing money or a fine at the fact I had been physically assaulted was not going to change anything. I also doubt that Dennis would have been able to pay that.

I experienced a loss of income because I was a stress case after that happened. At the time I refused or was in denial about being labelled a victim. I knew victim compensation existed, but I refused to take on that label.

I see now that I clearly was the victim of a crime, but I do not know if a fine would have necessarily put a salve on the problem I had. I know other people who were assaulted that night by the same two gentlemen did take the victims compensation they were offered. I chose not to.

As I said, we support the bill because we support victims of crime and their families and are following the recommendation of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, but we have reservations about the bill itself.

After having been assaulted I trusted the judge and the decision he made. He let one of the gentlemen go because he had seen that he had done quite a bit of work to distance himself from white supremacist groups, whereas he gave a bit of a harsher sentence to the other gentleman who had a record.

I trust judges' discretion. They have studied and thought about the concept of justice. Therefore, I would be more comfortable letting judges decide what is best rather than mandating a judge to do something. It is an insult to our judicial system to impose certain measures on them when they are in the best position to judge.

The other issue we are concerned about is the downloading of costs. I am wondering whether that has been looked at sufficiently and if all provinces and territories are ready to take on the costs that will effectively be downloaded onto them by this legislation. With the other bills that have touched on the Criminal Code for certain political purposes, we have seen costs downloaded onto the provinces. We have serious questions about that. We know that downloading of costs can put undue pressure on the budgets of provincial and territorial governments.

The other thing I really want to point out from my story is that we can say that there are criminals and victims and that criminals are evil and victims are good. In my case as a victim of assault, I agree that the actions of the gentleman who assaulted me were not acceptable in society. However, throwing money at the problem would not have solved the fact I had been victimized by assault. It was not going to change my psychological stress. It was not going to repair the damage that had been done. We cannot just throw money at a problem and expect that everything will be solved.

At committee I would question whether we have invested enough money in services to help victims. I know that the government wants to help victims and their families, but I would hope it would tone back its rhetoric in using this issue as a political issue and look at the issue more from a compassionate point of view and the experience of victims and to understand that not every story of every victim is the same, and not every story of every person who commits a crime is the same. These are complex issues. These people have complex stories and it is too easy for us here in this place to caricature victims and criminals. For example, I am always amazed by the kidnapping of young Kienan Hebert and how the father reached out to kidnapper and how they found forgiveness together.

There are different ways we can deal with crime and victims, and we have to take a more compassionate approach rather than turning it into a political caricature of white hat cowboy, black hat cowboy, good and evil. There is a lot more to be said and it is much more complex.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while I share many of the same concerns with the member from the Green Party, I am not clear whether she will support the bill going on to committee if, for instance, a convicted war criminal was found and there were questions like that.

Would she no agree with me that there is a question of priorities here? The government is presenting the bill before the House when there are so many other problems that exist. The underemployment of new Canadians costs us $5.9 billion a year in losses because of their underemployment. We have hollowed out our foreign engagement, eliminating culture as a pillar of foreign policy, and we do not meet them on their soil anymore. We have hollowed out the system to integrate professional new Canadians. Now, we have hollowed out Canadians' trust in new Canadians.

Would the member not agree that perhaps the government's priorities are misplaced? Even though we are supporting the bill at second reading, and we hope she will join us in order to improve the bill at committee, does she not see a question of priorities?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the question is, how did we get to this point? I would like to raise three points with the hon. member.

First, let us talk about our involvement on the international stage. In the past, we engaged in cultural outreach with other countries. It was the first point of contact for people in other countries. We showed them our Canadian culture. That was taken away. Then all the resources for integration were taken away, especially the integration of professionals who come here to be part of our society, to work and to build a strong country. Basically, I see this bill as part of a step-by-step agenda that is unfortunately moving us towards an anti-immigration policy.

Can the hon. member give us more details about the New Democrats' vision of immigration issues?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the government is currently finding it difficult to integrate newcomers into our country. That is my opinion as well. In six years, the government has not been able to develop a program for integrating professionals from other countries.

Can my colleague talk some more about the fact that the government is unable to do its job with respect to this issue?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Liberal Party has had a change of heart in terms of foreign acquisitions.

The member's memory is quite acute with respect to statements that our members have made. However, his party seems to have collective amnesia about its approach to foreign investment over the past 15 years given that in its 13 years of government there was not one time that it raised objections to any foreign acquisition.

The member for Winnipeg North and the member for Ottawa South have raised their concerns about foreign investment and the parallels that are perhaps linked to foreign investment. The member for Ottawa South mentioned having people running around the world trying to secure trade deals. I remember not that long ago when a certain Prime Minister was walking around the wall of China in his team Canada and Hawaiian shirts trying to secure trade deals as well.

I congratulate the member on his change of heart.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that we in the NDP respect the intelligence of Canadians. We are not afraid to talk to Canadians. We are not afraid to consult experts and to gather their opinions in order to be able to make better decisions, rather than hiding information from Canadians, dismissing expert opinions and going forward in the dark. That is not a responsible way to govern.

It is not in the spirit of responsible government to hide information from Canadians, to not share with them, to not take their opinions and advice, and to not take the advice of experts. This should be discussed primarily at the industry committee, taking into account all the opinions that Canadians and experts in the field might have on this issue.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is still a target of criticism in Canada. The government has been avoiding a definition of what it means by “net benefit” for two years now. Now, we have the opportunity to rectify the problem.

The government ought not to come to a decision on the $15.1 billion acquisition proposal submitted by CNOOC without consulting the public. The current decision-making process is not transparent enough and it is open to political pressure. Canadians need to trust this decision-making process, but all they see is people making things up as they go along.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the current Minister of Industry, felt that our suggestion that Canadians be consulted would deter foreign investors. I would argue, however, that it is the ambiguity of the “net benefit” concept and this government’s inaction that have caused investor uncertainty to increase. Open and transparent debate would provide investors with the confidence they need. Once the term “net benefit” to Canada is properly defined, investors will know how to proceed. They will know where they can invest.

Today, investors and Canadians alike are in the dark. Open and transparent debate is a key pillar of democracy. Debate and the right to freedom of expression are essential values in our political system.

I would therefore like to ask the following questions. Why is the government not consulting Canadians about the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC? Is the government afraid of hearing what Canadians have to say? Does the government believe that Canadians do not share its foreign investment priorities? Whether we are talking about the Northern Gateway oil pipeline or the drastic changes made in the last budget, Bill C-38, this government does not appear to want to consult the people in any way. This is probably because they know that Canadians will oppose the Conservatives' plans.

And yet, a responsible and democratic government cannot refuse to consult simply because it is afraid of what the people might say. Public consultation is a two-way relationship in which Canadians give information to the Canadian government. Public consultation is an essential component of our democratic system. It is a tool for expressing our fundamental rights. A democratic and open government must actively and genuinely engage the people in decision-making processes. Canadians want to be better informed. They want to be consulted and in particular, they want to play a role in processes that affect the country’s economy and their quality of life.

Not only does the government not want to consult the public, but it appears to be turning a blind eye to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the government agency known as CSIS, whose experts warned us last week that transactions of this kind can represent a national security risk.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service demonstrates in its 2010-11 report that there are legitimate national security threats when foreign firms try to gain control of key sectors of the Canadian economy. CSIS is giving us cause to reflect on this offer.

We need to review the likelihood that the Canadian government will enforce the commitments of a company with the direct political backing of the Chinese government. Under the current act these commitments are not even made public, so how can we have faith that the government will enforce them?

The government has been shamefully neglectful in enforcing previous commitments, and we are losing control of our ability to ensure that foreign companies meet their environmental and employment commitments.

We in the NDP favour free and fair trade, and good investment agreements that advance Canada's place in the world.

We want other countries to realize that if they want to have the privilege of operating in our free and democratic society, they need to uphold values that protect the integrity of the environment, and also recognize that unacceptable employment standards will not be tolerated. The Conservatives do not seem to be able to negotiate these types of treaties, unfortunately.

I would like to talk briefly about the value-added question, as well as the risk to it. I do not understand why the Conservatives are talking down our capacity in this country to create wealth. They are content with our being fourteenth in terms of global competitiveness. The following are the comments of the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca a few months ago at committee. Members might know that Fort McMurray is ground zero of the oil sands. He said:

I'm also glad to hear the NDP is interested in creating more jobs in Canada. Certainly I think that's important, to have value added that actually pays for itself. Here I just want to let the member know that with the glut of refining capacity in the United States right now, it's not a competitive industry so it would be very difficult indeed for a Canadian to make a profit on refining some of the raw materials we do have, because the refining can be done much more cheaply in the south—without government subsidies, of course, which I'm not into.

Can you see how this member and other members of his party talk down the Canadian economy and how their statements mislead us about the direction we have to go as an economy? A driver paying $1.50 a litre for gas does not care about an oil baron's profits. Developing here at home should mean savings at the pump for the consumer. It should mean cheaper energy costs.

The facts have not changed. Exports of unrefined bitumen are increasing. This is a valuable, finite resource and it will be processed in other places, such as China or the United States. CNOOC has not made a commitment to increase or even maintain existing Canadian value-added employment. This acquisition is clearly part of China's downstream development of oil resources, and it will taking activities that could take place here in Canada.

With the members of the government talking down value-added jobs here, it is no wonder they do not want to face Canadians and talk to them.

Canada’s private sector, communities and workers need to feel confident when there are foreign acquisitions. The manner in which the Conservative government has been proceeding lacks transparency and accountability and is creating a feeling of uncertainty.

In 2010, the government clearly promised to reform the Investment Canada Act and to define the criteria for what would constitute a net benefit to Canada. We refuse to accept that this government should be able to decide on the Nexen acquisition by foreign interests without following through on its promise to Canadians.

Once we have together reached a decision, as a free and just society, on what constitutes a net benefit to Canada, investors will have the confidence they need to invest under clear and democratic criteria. Canadians deserve better, and we need public hearings to get answers to the questions that have been raised by this transaction.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the purpose of the bill is to try to get big money out of financing. The member has mentioned he has problems with it being limited to financial institutions. What kind of entities is he talking about in terms of funding for political candidates?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree. When we make very concrete proposals, proposals that make good sense, the Conservatives start name-throwing at us. At one point, the Minister of Immigration characterized me as an anarchist, for instance, and said that I keep company with anarchists, even though I stand in this place, which obviously is not a den of anarchists at all.

I am also proud to say that I have read the text of Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Bookchin and that I have sympathies with some of these philosophers. I am not shy of the fact that I have read these books and I would much rather be someone who has read these thinkers than somebody who listens to the Paul Fromms and Doug Christies of the world.

When the minister claims things like the Canadian public wants the Sun Sea to be kept from our shores and others like that prevented, I wonder if the Canadians he is talking about are the Paul Fromms and the Doug Christies of Canada.