Mylène Freeman

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague opposite that we are not debating the content of any particular bill. She is constantly bringing up the omnibus budget implementation bill and defending what was in it.

Essentially I am concerned about what comprehensive legislation does and how it affects what we look at within those bills, not what we have done within the bills, but how we look at those different issues in the bill.

There are basically two different ways we could put forward legislation. There is the omnibus idea, where a lot of stuff is packed into one thing. Yes, it allows the government to push through its agenda very quickly, but is this quick legislation more important than ensuring that we have a meaningful examination of what is being done and allowing members to express themselves on different issues and how they would affect our constituencies.

Would the member opposite comment on that?

[Petitions, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising to present a petition calling on the government to reverse the decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area research station given that the ELA provides essential scientific knowledge for the development of policies that ensures the future health of freshwater in this country and internationally. That is a question of public health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her very important question.

A bill like this one goes hand in hand with prevention. The federal government needs to understand that it is responsible for the first nations, the Inuit and aboriginals.

It seems as though the Conservatives do not understand that it is their responsibility to provide services to these communities.

We need to provide them with greater access to culturally relevant education.

Providing preventive measures would mean fewer victims in the future. As I was saying, this has to go hand in hand with more funding for the victims. There will always be victims, but I think there could be fewer. I also think the government should focus its efforts on prevention.

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

Mr. Speaker, this was a recommendation made to the government. It was found that judges were often using their discretionary power to waive the fee. We really need to look at why that is. Judges are human. They are going to see things differently. They are not always going to apply the law perfectly unless it is made mandatory.

If it is being invoked often, the problem is more likely because of the fact that a lot of people who live in poverty become criminals. We need to look at addressing that problem before we start taking away the discretionary power of judges, who are really trying to help. Many of those women are mothers with dependents. If they are unable to pay, then in a sense we are creating more victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to support Bill C-37 so that it can be referred to committee. This bill proposes amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Code on victim surcharges, including subsection 737, in order to double the amount that offenders have to pay when they are sentenced, and to make the surcharge mandatory for all offenders. The surcharge is imposed at the time of sentencing for guilty offenders. It is used to finance crime victims programs and services in the province or territory where the crime was committed.

The Criminal Code requires that a judge impose a victim surcharge in all cases, but the judge also has discretionary power to waive it if the offender can demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship to him or his dependants. If the court decides not to impose a federal surcharge, a rationale has to be provided for the decision and the reasons have to be entered into the court record of deliberations. I am in favour of enhanced funding for victims programs.

On the surcharge for victims, I have some statistics. On May 27, 2010, 729 victim service agencies in Canada reported serving nearly 9,500 clients on that day. It is worth noting that three-quarters of them were women. Of those victims who received services, 81% said that they had been a victim of a violent crime.

In 2009-10, the most frequent types of assistance provided directly by victim services providers in Quebec included court-related guidance or information, courtroom assistance, information about the process and structure of the criminal justice system, preparing victims or witnesses, and assistance in compensation claims.

It is clear that helping victims of crime is costly and that we need to devote more to those who are suffering after a violent crime or any crime that has been done to them or to their family.

Although I support the essence of this bill and I agree that a larger levy on victims' service is, in general, a good idea as it would help us contribute more to victims, I do have some concerns and I hope the committee will closely examine this bill. For instance, the provincial programs that would be funded by this increased surcharge are essential and they need the support. There are not enough victim support services in the provinces. People who are the victims of crime often require psychological and social support during and after the legal process. Therefore, I approve of this. It is quite appropriate that those who commit the crimes be forced to invest in the programming that would help heal, not only for specific victims but for those who are similarly in need.

I call attention to the fact that the most glaring example of an underserviced demographic of victims is the families of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Yesterday, Ottawa had a strong show of solidarity with the families who have lost daughters, mothers, sisters and wives to horrible violence and unsolved disappearances. A hard-working group called Families of Sisters in Spirit organized a massive vigil on Parliament Hill yesterday. Its message was very strong and clear. Hundreds of women who have been taken will not be forgotten and the families and allies will not rest until the government recognizes its responsibility to these victims and to aboriginal women across the country who remain in danger.

Some of the saddest stories we heard on the Hill yesterday were about cases where crimes were not thoroughly investigated for months and sometimes years and where the victims of crime had to take it upon themselves to investigate the disappearances of their own loved ones because they could not get access to the services they needed. One of the repercussions of this phenomenon of disproportionately unsolved murders is that the families were told that they could not receive the victim services until the cases were solved. If no one is solving the cases, then, unfortunately, these families are left to themselves entirely.

When it comes to aboriginal women, it is not just the victims of kidnapping and murder who badly need the victim services. It is for the families and communities that we really need to invest in prevention. An aboriginal woman is five times as likely as a non-aboriginal woman to be the victim of a violent crime. This is mostly due to extreme rates of poverty. Over 40% of aboriginal women are living below the poverty line. These women have a shameful lack of access to police services, legal services, shelter and psychiatrists, let alone provincial victim services.

We do need better and more effective victims' services. If we can do something in this House to increase those kinds of services to those who need it, we especially need to think about increased funding to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities for those both on and off reserve.

This bill would make it impossible for a court to order that no victim surcharge be imposed on an offender when it is demonstrated that the payment of such a surcharge would cause the offender—or his dependants—undue hardship. Currently, judges have discretionary power to order the payment of a higher surcharge or to waive such a surcharge.

We on this side of the House have one concern and that is the power of judicial discretion. This discretionary power allows judges to waive the surcharge for criminals to whom it would cause undue harm or cause undue harm to their families. This is important for people who have committed crimes and are very poor.

Poverty is often the root cause of crime and financially crippling a person on top of sentencing them could make rehabilitation impossible. It could also make it difficult for their children to properly integrate into society and so on. With respect to the withdrawal of the clause on undue hardship and the provision seeking to double the surcharge amount, this would be problematic for low income offenders.

I will share with the House some statistics about who a lot of these people are. Eighty per cent of all federally sentenced women report having been physically or sexually abused. This rises to 90% when we are talking about aboriginal women. Two-thirds of federally sentenced women are mothers and they are more likely than men to have primary child care responsibilities. There are about 25,000 children whose mothers are either in federal prisons or provincial jails, and that was as of last year. Separation from their children and the inability to deal with problems concerning them are major anxieties for women in prison. If poverty is a contributing factor, then we can imagine the situation facing these families.

Women who have been in prison also have much lower employment rates than men who have been incarcerated. Not only do women experience more poverty than men but most criminalized women have low levels of education, limited employment and economic records and usually live alone in extremely poor housing conditions. In the Prairie region, most of the women in prison are indigenous. They represent 85% of the female prison population.

As I said earlier, these are people who are living in poverty and do not have access to social services. They also lack access to health care and education.

The issue of judicial discretion needs to be examined more closely. If it is used often, we may need to look at more prevention. We may need to look at providing more help to those on the ground who are living in poverty and may end up becoming criminals in the future. We really do need to be concentrating more on prevention.

I will be voting to send the bill to committee in order to examine it further because I agree that we should be funding more services for victims.

[Food Safety, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only XL Foods that is being targeted by the American authorities. There are now concerns south of the border regarding our food inspection standards, which are simply not high enough for the American market. The Conservatives' incompetence when it comes to food safety could be costly for our ranchers.

Are the Conservatives beginning to understand the scope of the impact of their budget cuts on food safety?

[Thérèse Poirier, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to take the time to recognize volunteers who are making a difference in their communities. I rise here today to commend the outstanding contribution made by Thérèse Poirier of Lachute, who was awarded the Hommage Aînés Argenteuil by the Table de concertation Parole aux aînés—a committee that gives a voice to seniors—on the occasion of seniors' day.

Ms. Poirier dedicates a great deal of her time, and plenty of energy, to residents of the assisted living facility at the CSSS in Argenteuil. For the past 27 years, she has been visiting them nearly every day. She helps them, listens to them, advocates on their behalf and sometimes even spoils them a little. She is regarded as a guardian angel whose generosity knows no bounds.

When people tell her that the residents are lucky to have her, Ms. Poirier replies that she is the lucky one—lucky to be healthy enough to continue to help them at age 77.

In closing, I would like to thank and congratulate all of the people like Thérèse Poirier in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree that is a problem. As I mentioned in my speech, this is obviously largely worrying when it comes to our environmental standards. We can be sure it will not be good for our economy or our environment.

The secrecy and non-consultation is something we often see with the government. It is not just that this agreement with China she is speaking of is going to be pushed through based on the whim of the government. It seems that most things are agreed to that way and sort of shoved down the throats of Canadians. That is why New Democrats are advocating for public consultations.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that it is not clear what a net benefit is, is actually impacting investment across the country, because foreign investors are not quite sure whether it is going to go through or what they are looking at when these things are on the table. It is not just Canadians who are not sure what is going on. In fact, Canadians are losing out because foreign companies will not want to invest in Canada if they are unsure of what the process is. This is really a lose-lose situation. Again, the Conservatives agreed back in 2010 that was the case and they have not done anything about it yet.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I am going to share my time with the member for Sudbury.

Canadian resources are above all for the benefit of Canadians. When we consider a case like the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC, the Conservatives’ penchant for secrecy and control without accountability shows in everything they do. Canadians are losing confidence in our investments because we are not in a position to determine whether an acquisition is in their best interests.

The opposition motion debated in the House today is not necessarily asking for the acquisition of Nexen by CNOOC to be rejected without an appraisal of the situation. It is basically asking that the process leading to a decision be sound. This debate is about transparency and accountability.

It is essential to hold consultations and to clarify the net benefit review process to ensure that the interests of Canadians are truly protected. When the net benefit criteria are not clear, the decision becomes arbitrary. There is neither transparency nor accountability. Even investors are not reassured by this arbitrary process. Until the act is clarified, it is impossible to weigh Canada’s interest against foreign interests.

In 2010, even the Conservatives agreed that the “net benefit” concept should be defined more clearly in the act. The then minister of industry had promised to do so. As we in the House know, the Conservatives do not come through on their promises of transparency. This is not surprising to us. Without this essential clarification, the net benefit is at the mercy of the minister’s own definition. I sincerely believe that this definition is not one that Canadians would accept.

In 2007, the guidelines added by the Conservatives to the act specified among other things that the targeted corporations should pay attention to what senior officials have to say, appoint Canadians to the board of directors and list the corporation’s shares on a Canadian stock exchange. I am not about to disagree that these factors should be taken into account, but the true concerns of Canadians relate more to employment and the environment. As it happens, environmental concerns are missing from the process, and employment is given short shrift.

In the specific case of Nexen, CNOOC has not promised to keep value-added jobs in Canada or to create new jobs. Nor has it promised anything about improving environmental performance.

With regard to the environment, it is not just the lack of promises that is disturbing. The different trade agreements that the Conservatives negotiated without paying attention to the details could prevent us from effectively protecting the environment because they would make the Canadian government open to legal action by foreign companies if it legislates in a responsible manner.

Furthermore, there is a significant risk for our jobs, especially in the processing and refining sectors. Are the Chinese not interested in extracting oil here and refining it in China? I believe that would be in their best interest. In that case, high-quality jobs in Canada's processing sector will be lost. China's refining capacity is at 85%. There are no guarantees that China will not use Canadian crude for the remaining 15%. That is hardly a net benefit.

While the Conservatives' priority is to find out who will be on the board of directors, jobs and the environment are the priorities of Canadians and the NDP. We must also not forget national security, which has been discussed a great deal recently, and security of intellectual property.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, issued a warning in its most recent report:

When foreign companies with ties to foreign intelligence agencies or hostile governments seek to acquire control over strategic sectors of the Canadian economy, it can represent a threat to Canadian security interests. The foreign entities might well exploit that control in an effort to facilitate illegal transfers of technology or to engage in other espionage and other foreign interference activities.

The People's Republic of China has a 64.45% stake in CNOOC and has a ministry of political and ideological affairs. In addition, China also has a party committee in the company. Better yet, the company president considers deepwater oil rigs to be its mobile national territory and a strategic weapon. All this seems to be consistent with the warnings that the Conservatives seem to be ignoring.

We must also consider that this acquisition is probably not an isolated event. China is making massive investments in natural resources abroad, which could have disastrous consequences.

For example, take China's investments in and purchases of agricultural land in Africa. The strategy is obvious: guarantee food security for China, which in turn weakens Africa's food security. It is vital that we prevent this type of phenomenon from taking place in Canada.

After making a few strategic purchases, China or any other foreign power could rapidly gain significant control of our natural resources. There is a definite risk that a precedent will be set. We are talking about the nationalization of our natural resources for the benefit of another nation. I believe this is a mistake.

The Conservatives will of course answer that investments in the economy are necessary, and on that we agree. Certainly, such investments help our economy. But while they want to have investments that are controlled outside Canada, I think the best way of promoting innovation and developing the Canadian economy is really to have Canadian investments.

In an article published in Canada Business entitled “Canadian business must invest more if Canada is to remain competitive”, journalist Hugh McKenna quoted a report prepared by Deloitte, “The Future of Productivity: Clear choices for a competitive Canada”. I took two points from that article that are being completely ignored by the Conservatives: first, the real problem with Canadian productivity is the lack of investment and capacity for expansion on the part of Canadian companies; second, the government should make the foreign investment review process more transparent.

Those positions reflect the concerns felt by Canadians. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not seem to have the same concerns about real prosperity, jobs, the environment and the security of Canada.

They are even working against those principles by raising the threshold in the act for a transaction that is subject to the net benefit review. At present, the Investment Canada Act provides that transactions with a value of $330 million or over are to be reviewed by the Minister of Industry, but that threshold will shortly be raised to $1 billion or over. The government is clearly moving backwards when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests.

To conclude, I have to point out the perfect ironic illustration of how less than zealous the Conservatives are when it comes to standing up for Canadian interests. Although the Conservatives seem set on approving the Nexen purchase with no discussion, the acquisition of the agricultural corporation Viterra by Glencore, which the Conservatives had approved, is currently being subjected to careful scrutiny by China’s anti-monopoly agency. I find that interesting.

I repeat: as a general rule, in this debate, we should not be replacing one arbitrary approach with another.

The NDP is not calling for the deal to be simply rejected, but we want to be sure that thorough public consultations are held and transparent, accessible public hearings are organized on the issue of foreign ownership in the Canadian energy sector. We want to know what foreign governments are going to be doing in Canada, and obviously we want to clarify what the legislation says about the concept of “net benefit”.

I see my time is up. Thank you.