Mike Sullivan

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 is part of a pattern that I have noticed as a non-first nations person here in the House of policies and practices of the government that are paternalistic, punishing and somewhat prejudicial. This pattern is quite disturbing to me as a non-first nations person in that the government should actually be protecting and enhancing the first nations people of this country rather than punishing them.

The genesis of the bill, as I understand it, was a report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation about the remuneration received by a band chief, or maybe other band chiefs, that was in excess of what we pay the Prime Minister. There are lots of corporations in this country that pay significantly in excess of what the Prime Minister makes. Whether a band has the resources to be able to pay its chiefs appropriately is not something that we should concern ourselves with unless there is some evidence of fraud or of other nefarious means. That is not the case here. There was no indication and no expectation on the part of the band that the chief was being paid in some manner that was inappropriate.

Indeed, the bill does not even touch on the appropriateness of compensation. It does not provide any guidance as to what would be a conflict of interest or what would be a conflict in terms of remuneration. Instead, it seems to punish the bands that are providing many financial statements already by making them provide even more by increasing the reporting requirements in an extreme way. That, again, seems to be a punishment for bands, perhaps for having spent so much on their chiefs.

In terms of it being paternalistic, once again we see that the government will not consult with the first nations themselves but instead prescribe for the first nations what they must do. We have heard time and time again in the House and from first nations themselves that what they want is be free to run their own affairs and, where the government provides some money, they want to be consulted. By the word “consult” we mean consent. We do not mean just spend a few dollars and bring a few people in to talk. We actually mean that the bands should give consent where there are major changes to how the government provides its services to them and the relationship between the Canadian government and the governments of the first nations people.

It gets even more paternalistic when the government says that if bands do not follow its rules it will hold back money. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would do that to a band, to punish the children of the band perhaps if the money is for education, or to punish the mothers of the band perhaps if the money is for food or shelter. Why on earth are we punishing these people for the actions of a few? We have tried at committee to move significant amendments to the bill to deal with those issues that have been raised with us by the first nations and the issues that we can plainly read in the text of the bill, and yet every one of those amendments have been rejected by the government. As is the case in almost all the bills before Parliament, there is no attempt to be co-operative or consultative with the other parties in the House. The government does it all on its own.

The bill is punishing to the first nations because, in many circumstances, it would require the proprietary business information be released to the public. We are not talking, as the member for Scarborough Centre suggested, about ensuring that band members have this information. In fact, the requirement is that the information be made completely public and, when it is made public, if it is proprietary information, it puts the band at a disadvantage. It is punishing the band.

Some of these bands have been quite successful in creating businesses and trying to lift some of their members out of the extreme poverty in which we often find Canadian first nation members. The government's reaction is to punish them for doing that by making them release proprietary information in their financial statements that would put them at a disadvantage to non-first nation businesses in Canada and elsewhere. That is just wrong. We should not be putting first nations people at a disadvantage.

When we talk about proprietary information, the thing that I find most ironic is that when a freedom of information request is made of the government, most often the excuse that it gives when turning down the release of information, whether it is financial or otherwise, is that it is proprietary information and protected by the privacy of the dealings with another business or entity. Yet first nations are not given the same ability to protect their information. Instead, they are being told they must disclose it or the government will step in and withhold money.

I believe the government has fallen 30 places in the world's rankings in terms of freedom of information requests. Yet it is telling first nations they have to release information. The government is not practising what it preaches. As we know, the government's accountability is always in question when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has to take the government to court in order to get information released. Yet the way the government treats first nations is to say that if they do not release information, it will withhold their education money or money for housing or food.

There are some who have spoken at committee about the punishing nature of the required information. John Paul from the Membertou First Nation on October 24 stated:

In addition to what we do publicly, our first nation community must also still comply with all the detailed reporting requirements as decreed by the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada reporting handbook, developed by AANDC alone, as per the conditions of the five-year multi-year funding agreement that we have signed with AANDC. The time my staff has to spend to complete these obligations is significant and is done at our own first nation's cost.

The government does not help with any of this.

These reporting requirements and the need for documentation seem to have increased, even though a few years ago the Conservative government committed to an improved funding relationship. The continual and increasing reporting burden on our first nation must be addressed.

We are going in the opposite direction with the bill. We are creating a greater burden and more funding requirements, and there is no additional money to provide for it.

In terms of the policies of paternalism and some would say even prejudice toward the first nations, I am reminded of the comments of the Prime Minister when the Attawapiskat First Nation crisis came to our attention last fall. His knee-jerk reaction was to say, “We gave them lots of money. Where did they spend it?”

That was not the problem. The problem was not that the government gave them lots of money, it was that the government did not give them enough money. It has frozen their funding at 2% raises since 2000, first by the Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government, when their population is increasing at a greater rate than that and the inflation rate in Canada is higher than that on many occasions. Every year that funding arrangement stays in place, first nations fall further and further behind.

We are told that 85,000 new homes need to be built on first nation reserves. The Conservatives bragged yesterday about how it built 16,000 houses since 2005, which we should remind them was money that Jack Layton got out of the Paul Martin government to create new housing. In fact, the Conservatives voted against providing money for housing. Native North Americans in Canada are 85,000 houses short and yet the government is going ahead without providing any new housing infrastructure money for first nations. It is frozen at 2%.

As far as education goes and as far as we can tell, the first nations who must report on this money now are being paid half of what other Canadian children receive in terms of education dollar spending. In some cases this paternalistic attitude toward the first nation education system is such that when a first nation is given space to have a school, the government deducts the value of that space from the money it gives the first nation for education, even though it did not cost anyone anything. It is shameful that the government—

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's interrupted speech with some interest. We are now facing a closure motion on the bill and therefore this is the last day of debate on this section of the bill. Does he believe that this is the most important, most crucial piece of legislation facing the House at the moment? The fact that the Conservatives have only put up five speakers so far out of 160 is a bit ironic given the circumstances that we face with the closure motion in front of us.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did see another member rise, but I did not see the member for Halifax rise.

[Housing, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, facts are facts and Canadians are going hungry. This fall, reports showed record food bank use and Campaign 2000 yesterday reported that one in seven children is still living in poverty. Both also point to affordable housing as key to solving the problem. Provincial, territorial and municipal governments are committed to providing affordable housing but the Conservatives are missing in action.

The NDP has the solution. The only question is whether the Conservatives will support our national affordable housing strategy.

[Toronto Air-Rail Link, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Clean Train Coalition began an application for judicial review of the Metrolinx decision to use diesel rather than electric trains between Pearson Airport and Union Station in Toronto. The people in my riding of York South—Weston, as well as those in Davenport, Parkdale—High Park and Trinity—Spadina, are all concerned with the air pollution that will be the result of up to 464 diesel trains travelling each day through densely populated neighbourhoods.

The McGuinty Liberals in Ontario are pushing Metrolinx to use diesel, despite the World Health Organization recently declaring diesel exhaust to be a class one carcinogen. They are pushing to make sure the project is ready for the 2015 Pan Am games. Ironically, the Olympic body responsible, ODEPA/PASO, has declared these games to be the first ever green and sustainable games. Diesel trains are neither green nor sustainable.

There is considerable federal money in this project. I would urge the federal Minister of Transportation to tell Ontario to do the right thing and make these trains electric now, as any world-class city should.

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for making this a little more understandable for us parliamentarians. However, it is not understandable to most Canadians, which is one of things I want to ask him about.

This report may not do what it is Canadians might want it to do. I will give him a couple of examples of when Canadians were somewhat baffled by budgetary issues. Maybe he can comment.

One was the move of $50 million from the border infrastructure fund into equipment or gazebos in one of the ridings, purportedly for the G8 Summit. The other was the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to spend less than half the money in the ecoEnergy retrofit program by unilaterally determining to cut off the program before its program date.

Both are examples of when the government makes announcements, and we vote on budgets. We vote on appropriations. Then the government unilaterally changes those things. I would like Canadians to understand how those things can happen in this parliamentary system of ours.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for again pointing out that the Conservatives' response to a problem in Canada of merely making amendments to the Criminal Code is not really dealing with the problem. It is dealing with the effects of the problem but it is not dealing with the problem. Much of what we have been saying here today is that there are other things that need to be done for seniors, including income and social supports, but none of these things are part of the bill.

However, even as I read the bill, it appears that there are some flaws. The definition of “substantial effect” to a senior is not something that a judge in a hearing would know about until after the person is convicted. Therefore, the process of getting to a conviction would not reflect what might have been a substantial effect. Could the member comment on that?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the actions that the government has taken is they do not make people feel more safe. That has been the problem.

The government has taken action to remove a long gun registry, which in fact police were using every day. It has taken steps to make penalties for using guns harsher. I am not aware of too many criminals who read the law before they take a gun and shoot somebody. That is not what goes on in the minds of criminals.

What is necessary in order to make people feel safer is safer and more secure housing, and safer and more secure streets, which may mean we need some proactive way to get at the proliferation of handguns.

When I go into a high school and half of the children there admit to owning a handgun or knowing someone who does, there is something wrong with our society. When the proliferation of handguns is that pervasive that high school students think nothing of owning a handgun, there is something wrong.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as for Canada's role in the world, one way of putting it is that we have always punched above our weight. However, since the government took office, we are less able to have an influence in the major and underlying issues facing this planet. Nowhere was that more evident than when we were rejected for a spot on the Security Council.

I am a supporter of the United Nations. I prefer to think that the United Nations is a place we can go to have large-scale discussions about the ills that face the world. Canada should be a part of that process.

More and more, since the government has taken office, we seem to be pushing ourselves to the outside of the UN. We do not want to make speeches at the UN. We do not want to abide by our commitments. It has been seven years since the commitment to the UN was made. It has been almost three years since the commitment on the persons with disabilities was made, and there has been no report from the government on that commitment.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

The bill fulfills Canada's treaty obligations to the UN under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, including extending international measures and beyond protecting against proliferation to now include the protection of nuclear facilities. Also, it reinforces Canada's obligation under the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 taken in 2004, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.

At the outset, let me say that we generally support the bill. We think it is about time that the government actually lived up to its obligations under the UN, but we have some reservations about the scope of the bill.

I also want to point out that the government with its law and order agenda has an overarching propensity to deal with law and order as its prime focus. This is just one of 14 bills, I believe, that have reached the House dealing with crime or crime and punishment, or defining crime. There are many of them. There were bills about megatrials, human smugglers, mandatory minimums, military justice, the gun registry, citizens' arrest, criminal and electronic communications, human smugglers, elder abuse, accountability of offenders, RCMP accountability, the faster removal of foreign criminals, terrorism and nuclear terrorism, which would lead one to believe that perhaps Canada is going through a spate of crime that is out of proportion to everything, because these bills are out of proportion to what we are doing here in the House of Commons.

However, that is not true. The facts suggest otherwise, that crime is on the decline in Canada and has been on the decline since before the government took office. Focusing on laws to scare Canadians into thinking that crime is on the rise and making the criminal justice system harsher and less flexible is not the way to go. On this side of the House, we believe that a flexible and more systematic approach to crime is a better of dealing with it.

The bill is necessary and we agree it is necessary to adopt these laws, to abide by our agreements with the United Nations, to deal with the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, et cetera. However, let us talk about what things are still missing from the government's agenda while this bill is front and centre.

The government is making illegal certain acts of terrorism involving nuclear materials. Bravo. Canadians generally are glad that, if people try to use nuclear or radioactive material for terrorism, they will be doing something against the law and if they are caught and convicted they will face serious penalties. However, we note there are no mandatory minimums here.

What is the government doing about other things that are terrifying Canadians? In my riding of York South—Weston there was a recent spate of killings and maimings using handguns. Last week one person was killed and two others injured in handgun violence. Over the summer, there were six funerals of Somali youth who were gunned down in acts of violence all over the city of Toronto. Of course there were the horrific shootings at a block party on Danzig Street in Scarborough, which left two dead and 23 injured. What action has the government taken to stop the flow of illegal guns at our border?

It is all well and good to pass laws making terrorism and nuclear terrorism illegal, but if our citizenry is being terrorized by other things, what are we doing about that? What actions are being taken to get the guns that are already there off the street? There is no bill before us on that topic.

The government passed Bill C-19, which cancels and will destroy the long gun registry, so less will be known about what guns are out there, and people are fearful. People in my city are fearful about what that will mean for their personal safety. They are more fearful than they were before the Conservative government took power.

In my riding of York South—Weston the bill does nothing to prevent another thing that is the single biggest crime in my riding right now, the theft of cellphones and other electronic mobile devices. Kids are being mugged and people are being injured, and yet nothing is happening from the government. The solution is simple. Make it illegal to activate phones reported as stolen, and I brought forward such a motion in the House of Commons.

So far the government is silent on things that are terrifying people, that are making people feel they are less safe than they were yesterday. Yet, we are here discussing nuclear terrorism.

It also takes aim at the risk of the environment being threatened by nuclear terrorists. Again, bravo. Canadians are worried about the environment. They are worried about the climate changes that have been felt most recently from Hurricane Sandy doing damage to both the U.S. and Canada.

What else is the government doing about the environment? The definition of the environment in Bill S-9, this bill, is almost identical to that found in the new environmental assessment act. Essentially,

“environment” means the components of the Earth, and includes (a) land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; (b) all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and (c) the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Bravo, again.

If a nuclear terrorist threatens any of these elements of the environment, they can be charged with an offence, and if convicted, they can face serious time. However, if they do something, the environmental effects of these actions cannot hurt any living organism, including humans. That is not so for the way that the government treats its own projects.

The definition of environmental effect in the new environmental assessment act is only about those impacts on fish, migratory species and birds. If a federal project harms the environment in such a way that human health is threatened, apparently the government does not care. Human health is no longer protected by the Environmental Assessment Act.

Bill S-9 protects human health. It therefore protects the environment better against harm than the environmental assessment act. Nuclear terrorists are treated more harshly than government projects or other projects that are of large scale and large effect and that can in fact harm the environment. Most of those projects are not nuclear terrorism, so nothing is wrong with harming human health, says this Conservative government.

Bill S-9 is a necessary part of living up to our obligations to the UN. We like the UN. We wish we were part of the Security Council. We wish we lived up to all of our obligations. One of those obligations is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the government signed on March 11, 2010. On that date the government promised, as a result of signing that convention, to report back to the UN within two years. It still has not done it.

There has been no report on what it has done so far to help persons with disabilities. So far, the government has done things to harm persons with disabilities. One of the things that treaty with the UN says very clearly we are supposed to be doing is making it possible for persons with disabilities to have equal access to information, equal access to the Internet. Yet, the government, in its last bill, removed community access funding. It therefore cut off thousands upon thousands of disabled individuals from having access to the Internet, which they had grown used to under that plan, and it is no longer available to them.

The government has apparently failed the disabled, and failed, again, one of the very important things we have signed with the UN. We agreed with the UN. We thought we would make life better for the disabled, with every measure we took and with everything we did. Yet, we have the government acting in opposition of that promise to the UN.

In addition, the bill does nothing to deal with one of the most pressing needs in my riding, and that is affordable housing. The bill is all about safety and security, but safety and security is one of the things that is most missing in my riding with regard to persons living in supported housing in the city of Toronto.

Fifteen years ago, the Liberal government got itself out of supported housing, and the federal government has done nothing to move back into that role. The City of Toronto is facing a $750 million deficit in terms of repairing these buildings, and thousands upon thousands of people are on waiting lists. Yet, we can do nothing about it. This is part of the safety and security of individuals in my riding in the city of Toronto, and in Canada as a whole.

However, the most important thing facing us is nuclear terrorism, according to the government. We have done absolutely nothing to assist those people in this country to feel more secure in where they live.