Nathan Cullen

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, November 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, a proposal was raised by New Democrats through this debate. I am wondering about the member's opinions and his party's opinions on this.

I think the government has found a loophole that involves people who are staying beyond their retirement years who are then having their room and board taken care of, if we want to call prison “room and board”, but are also receiving old age security payments. The government wants to take those funds that have been allocated, and constitutionally allocated, to those prisoners and put them into a fund to help with the rehabilitation process and to help with external programs that it has since cut.

One of those programs that we are very intimate with in the riding I represent is the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This was an institution set up to help with the institutional effects of residential schools over many generations. The government decided to cut those funds, and the effects have been felt throughout.

The reason I raise aboriginals in this particular case is we know that first nations are overrepresented in our prison system as it is right now. One of the ways to help people either stay out of prison, or if they go in to not go back in, recidivism, is to make sure there are supportive programs when they come out.

The government seems to be blinkered in its attitude towards crime, they believe that the only satisfactory response to crime is to build more prisons as opposed to stopping the crimes from happening in the first place.

If we really want to stand up for victims' rights in this country, we would create fewer victims. By creating more programs there would be fewer victims in the country and fewer crimes happening.

I am wondering about my colleague's opinion about taking this one issue, this so-called Olson bill, and referring it to something a little bit more profound and getting at the sources and roots of crime, the actual nuts and bolts.

[Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act, November 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear my hon. colleague say what the government is not willing to say on some of these issues, which is he does not know why this was instituted in the first place.

A number of times I have seen the government take a very specific case or a story out of a newspaper and then draft entire legislation around it. It is not necessarily just specific to the bill that is before us, because these bills take a great deal of effort. They change the laws in our country, so they do not just apply to the newspaper story case or to individuals. They apply to everybody.

We have seen this developing pattern from the supposed tough on crime government where it uses individual cases, newspaper articles or something in the evening news to build legislation and craft Canadian law. This precedent sends us down a very dangerous road. There is the rule of unintended consequences when we craft legislation. We craft it for one purpose, but the way the law works in applying to everything has all sorts of other consequences.

In the case of the so-called Olson bill, I think my colleagues have expressed it well. Canadians have a great resistance to the idea of also paying for CPP and what not. However, there is this principle of designing legislation based upon media moments that may grab a few more votes and bits of attention. It was said once that we should worry as much about who was going into prison as who was coming out.

Could the hon. member comment on this? The government seems not so concerned with the rehabilitative process of prisoners or the fact that they will likely commit a crime again if they do not receive any kind of service or help whatsoever to rehabilitate themselves fully.

[Natural Resources, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after leaking millions of barrels of oil into Michigan's rivers, Enbridge is still planning to build a pipeline across northwest B.C. to carry raw bitumen to China.

Last month's resolutions at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities were clear. The mayors of British Columbia say no. First nations from across the province made clear their opposition at the first nations summit. The first nations of British Columbia say no. The Alberta Federation of Labour warns that exporting raw bitumen by pipeline will cost the province thousands of jobs. The workers of Alberta say no.

What part of no does the government find it so difficult to understand?

[Resignation of Member, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comments short for my hon. colleague and friend. I know he is in a rush to start keeping his bankers' hours, and that will certainly shift some of his work day.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay just informed me that apparently the road to cabinet is through Timmins, from my hon. colleague's beginnings.

Like many other colleagues in this place, we share a great respect for our friend. While we have sometimes disagreed on particular issues, he has always held himself to a high standard of dignity when representing his government's views on whatever issue.

I congratulate him on an important decision he had to make just recently that I think was positive for all of us. This is a place where we often do not get to address the personal. The House of Commons can be a difficult place for that. However, at this moment I think it is an expression on behalf of all New Democrats that we wish our colleague the very best of luck in his future endeavours and that his family warmly welcomes him back to a little bit more of a regular life.

[Natural Resources, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Last spring this House voted unanimously for a complete review of Canada's rules and regulations around risky oil and gas projects. Since then the Minister of Natural Resources has continually passed the buck to the National Energy Board. But on Tuesday the head of the NEB directly contradicted the minister, saying it is not responsible for this review and does not even have the mandate to do so.

I understand the minister is living under a cloud of controversy, but will he finally take responsibility, quit passing the buck and do his job?

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, sometimes the allies that come together over important issues are not originally conceived of, but we are hearing analysts of the stock market essentially saying to members of Parliament and the public to reverse the roles. Imagine, as my hon. colleague has said, a Canadian firm attempting to do what BHP Billiton was trying to do to Potash.

Would the foreign investment rules of the Brazilians, Chinese, Germans, and the list would go on, allow a Canadian firm to do the exact same thing with so few commitments and none of it in the light of day? The clear and obvious answer is, not on their life. They understand that, although this does not apply to all industries, there are key industries and sectors in our economy that are truly the foundations. If we take them out, the whole economy is weakened.

We are argue that the economy of Saskatchewan, and in effect, Canada, would be weakened by this takeover. I know the government is feeling conflicted about this decision. We can hear it in members' comments. They do not like what they just did, because it banged right up against an ideology that the market solves all. Laissez-faire was always the answer. We know that our competitors, the Chinese and the Brazilians, have a free and open access market as well, but they put conditions on things that will always service their own interests.

For goodness' sake, if the Conservatives campaigned on standing up for Canada, they should do it from time to time. They should truly stand up for Canada and our net interests. Is that not what any government should promise itself and the Canadian people: to leave the country better than they found it? The current government cannot do that.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, let me read what my view is in the case of not just Potash but what happens with all foreign investment proposals. It is the third point in the motion today, which states:

ensuring all conditions attached to approval of a takeover be made public and be accompanied by equally transparent commitments to monitoring corporate performance....

That is my view of this particular case and cases to come, because there are going to be more and we recognize that: “ensuring all conditions attached to approval”. So if a company has committed to keeping its headquarters in Saskatchewan, it should be made public, signed on the dotted line, so the constituents have something to hold up in a court of law to say the company broke its promise.

We know that, in case after case, companies acquiring Canadian firms make all sorts of promises. They are in a public relations mode. They are going to promise the sun, the moon and the stars, but when it comes to reality, six, 12 or 18 months down the road, they are not so committed and the government has taken some of those companies to court. Obviously the Investment Canada Act is not working and it would not have worked in the case of Potash. The government was right to refuse the sale. It was right to do this because it could not get this into the public light. Ultimately, it is the public that deserves to know these things.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

I recently asked the parliamentary secretary if he was open to transparency and accountability. It is of good note for the public that he refused to even answer the question at all, whether he was supportive or not, or had any actual opinion on the idea of public hearings.

The record shows that there have been 13,500 Canadian firms taken over in a brief amount of time, with only two of those bids being rejected. Out of 13,500 takeovers, the government, and the previous one, found only two that they did not see as a net benefit to Canada.

When we ask the government to define what net benefit actually means, other than just an anecdotal term, it offers nothing. It offers a “trust us” type slogan.

This process allows companies to meet behind closed doors and never involve the public in any moment of the deliberations, never involve the employees, the shareholders, the workers, or the communities that may be affected. This has left a path of destruction behind it. At a fundamental level, it is irresponsible government. It is laissez-faire as an ideology taken to a point of ultimate doom for communities that survive and depend on some of these companies. We know the list of communities and companies that have suffered because of this lack of oversight.

The government may smile, but it needs to talk to the former employees of Vale Inco, Stelco, or Falconbridge. It needs to talk to the 300 Alcan employees who lost their jobs in Quebec. All of these takeovers somehow passed the net benefit test of the government.

In some cases, the government has been forced to take the company to court to receive some sort of compensation back, but there is no due process in a court of law that will be compensatory to the families that have been uprooted, that have had their whole lives turned upside down because they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Often the communities and employees have built the company up, often from scratch, to a world-leading status. These are strong companies as they are being sought after by other companies around the world.

I can recall an incident in the House when the finance minister was asked about the potential purchase of Noranda by Minmetals, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese communist government. The finance minister had the gall to say that we could not stand in the way of foreign so-called investment. A solely owned communist government company was going to come in and buy our largest mining interest and the government had no problem with it whatsoever. It was as if the Chinese government would not use that as a leverage for its own national interest and against ours. This is beyond belief and the ability to imagine from the government.

I do not know if it is a lack of experience. I do not know if it is ideological blinkers that the Conservatives have placed on themselves. However, they have to wake up to the reality of the 13,500 consecutive takeovers and the experience in places like Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Timmins and Hamilton.

The people of Saskatchewan woke up to the reality that this would not be a net benefit to them. There was not a chance. If BHP Billiton decided to move its head offices or shut down operations, as it talked about in a Chicago court but did not mention it to the government, then the people of Saskatchewan working for this company and affected it would have no recourse whatsoever.

It was only after much political pressure, when the people of Saskatchewan stood and said “No more. On this one, fight for us please” to the 12 or 13 hon. members who come from the Conservative caucus out of Saskatchewan, did the Prime Minister find himself caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock was the will and determination of the people of Saskatchewan. The hard place was his ideology that the market solves all in all cases, full stop.

We know for a fact that foreign investment is not always the same thing and can have multiple results. It is uncertain. There is foreign investment that creates jobs. In the NDP motion talks to foreign investment that creates opportunities for our economy. We are a trading nation and the New Democrats recognize that. We recognize that foreign capital can enable companies to do more, to go out and seek opportunities that they otherwise could not get at. However, foreign capital that takes away jobs, shuts down head offices and puts people out of work is not what I would determine good foreign investment.

We have this process in place, this act in which all of these takeovers are governed by, but it protects nobody except the narrow interests of the investors of those taking over the company, and these companies are truly global in scale.

BHP Billiton is based in Australia, but the investors are all over. They do not care a whit for the people of Saskatchewan or Canada. It is about the bottom line. In the current markets in which they exist. It is not about the next five or twenty-five years of profitability. Often these CEOs and their executive boards are attached to the next quarter's results, because their pay and compensation is linked to the next quarter, the next three months, not the next thirty years.

The reason Potash was so successful, started by an NDP government, was because it had a long-term view. It was able to make strong investments. It was able to look to the long-term view and understand that potash would be a strong resource for many years to come. That was created from a left-leaning government to enable the economy of Saskatchewan to stay strong for many years to come.

My colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing will talk about the real life examples. The government can talk about this in cold, harsh economic terms or just get up on its hind legs and attack the parties and all this nonsense. However, in real people terms, the effects of some of these takeovers have been a net loss to Canada, and it has to admit that in the cold light of day. They have been a net loss to the people of Sudbury. The people of Timmins, or Hamilton, or Kitimat, B.C. are feeling no net benefit. There has been a net loss and the government just has to recognize that the act needs to be improved, and the NDP is calling for that.

In our motion, the first request we make of the government is to make the hearings public. What sitting member can turn to the people of Saskatchewan and tell them they are not allowed in the door to hear what is going to happen to one of their most significant economic drivers, that they should trust the member and that the power is going to reside in the hands of one person, the minister, as if the minister has this divine inspiration to make the right call and understand all the facets?

I guess the government is saying that people are just too dumb to understand, that they do not have the right to access these hearings. What a bunch of malarkey for a formerly grassroots movement, which was the Reform Party, to come to this place with such arrogance. I use the word carefully but significantly. To say that the Canada Investment Act needs no public disclosure whatsoever, that the good people of Saskatchewan, or Sudbury or Kitimat have no right or capacity to possibly understand what is being discussed is arrogant. It is arrogant to suggest that only the minister can have any influence over this decision and that is the way it has to remain.

There was a Saskatchewan member quoted just a couple of days ago. When asked what was going to happen with this, his response was “read the Conference Board of Canada report”. The Conference Board of Canada did a study on this and told the government that it should just sell it off. So much for members from Saskatchewan standing up for their constituents. They were actually advocating publicly that the Potash Corporation should be sold off.

The Premier of Saskatchewan had to go on television and radio, decry that statement and say that the member of Parliament from Saskatchewan did not know what he was talking about, that the Conference Board may have said that but it was not such a great idea for the people of Saskatchewan. I have the Conference Board report right here, if any of the members from the Conservatives would like to actually read it to see what they were supporting.

It seems to me that in the business environment, and we hear this from particularly the larger companies, a level of certainty is required to do business in Canada. The OECD, which looks at developed markets around the world, cited market uncertainty as the number one reason not to invest in Canada. It did not say labour costs. It did not say environmental protections. It did not say any of these things. It said that to invest in the Canadian market, the number one detriment, and the Conservatives have to get hold of this, was uncertainty, poor regulations in the stock market and a poor understanding of the rules surrounding foreign investment.

That is not me talking. That is the OECD, not exactly a left-leaning organization. It is saying this because it has surveyed the business community, the international investment community and the capital managers. The OECD found, in 2007, 2008 and again in 2009, the number one detriment to investing in this country was uncertainty.

The NDP is calling for more certainty today. It is saying that when companies step forward, looking to truly invest in Canada, in the true sense of the word invest, to enable communities to become stronger, to put more jobs into our marketplace, to put food on the table, because that is what investment should do, they must have clear and accountable guidelines. It should not be in the hands of one minister, not behind closed doors where deals are being made and the people are told to stand outside and wait patiently for the inspirational powers of intelligence of the current minister or whomever the minister may be. That is wrong.

We can do better. We can attract foreign investment and do it on terms that are favourable to the people of Canada, to the communities on which this would have the most impact, not just the investors on Wall Street and in London but the people whose lives often depend on these companies and their strength.

[Business of Supply, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, although focusing so much on the member for Wascana probably does him too much of a service.

The member talked about what his government was elected on, what the mandate was. It is fundamental to politics that we campaign on something. People look at the campaigns, compare them, and elect us on that supposed mandate.

The Conservatives also talked a great deal about accountability and transparency in government. Part of the NDP motion today, which addresses not only potash but also foreign investment in general, is to ask that public hearings actually happen. We need to make public hearings a mandatory part of a foreign investment review. This would not require every moment of the foreign investment to be made public. But something should be put into the legislation that allows the public the opportunity to see the arguments made by the foreign company or foreign government looking to buy a Canadian asset.

In the spirit of accountability to the Canadian people, and to the workers of a company that might be purchased, would my hon. colleague agree with that sentiment? Would he agree that at least some part of the review should be made public? Would he agree that the public should have an opportunity, in the fair and true light of day, to see exactly what is being done to a Canadian firm?

[Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, November 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. This is a group that every year chooses 70 outstanding teachers from across the country. They are chosen for their intelligence, passion and dedication to our democratic system.

They come to better understand our parliamentary system and to better understand the working lives of members of Parliament from right across this land. They do this to better inspire their students, to better inform and educate the next generation of voters and Canadian citizens as to the meaning of our democratic institutions, as to their proper place and, indeed, for their responsibilities.

Teachers are mentors and guides to our young people at some of the most critical times in their lives. We celebrate the Teachers Institute and we celebrate our teachers. I say bravo.