Niki Ashton

[Shannen's Dream, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 15-year-old Shannen Koostachin had a dream. She dreamt that all first nations children should be entitled to an education in a healthy and safe environment, just as non-aboriginal children. Sadly, Shannen did not live to see others carry on the fight to realize her dream.

My colleagues from Timmins—James Bay and Nanaimo—Cowichan have put forward a motion to push the government to close the funding gap for schools on reserve.

Today, in Ottawa, leaders, activists and children in our communities came together to launch the Shannen's Dream campaign and to call on the government to act on this national disgrace. In my region, the government has ignored the plight of children in Oxford House, Gods River and Gods Lake Narrows, as well as other first nations across Canada.

Today we would like to honour Shannen, her family and her community. Let us fulfill Shannen's dream.

[Infrastructure, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada in the year 2010, the government is turning a blind eye to the third world living conditions in Island Lake, Manitoba. These first nations have called on the federal government to partner with them and deal with these conditions by building an all-weather road. Climate change has cut the ice-road season, and this region of 10,000 people and growing needs a stable transportation route to access goods and services for health, housing, education, and economic development.

The province is on board. Why will the federal government not commit to road access and end the third world conditions in our own country?

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been clear in the message we are sending to the Conservative government that we want our resources to stay in our hands. We do not want to repeat what has so negatively affected so many of our communities.

We see nickel, steel, and other elements of our mineral wealth moving out of our country, to the detriment of our working people. We see that foreign companies have undertaken an attack on benefits, pensions, and even communities themselves. This is why we ask our federal government to stand up for our communities and make sure that our resources stay in our hands.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the government has not always based its decisions entirely on facts.

By eliminating the mandatory long form census, the government has reduced our access to the information we need to make better policy decisions. For people like northern Manitobans, the people whom I represent, it is a grave concern. As for aboriginal peoples, they are often silenced, and without the long form census their voices will be even less in evidence in the decisions that are made. This is truly troubling.

The same goes for medical decisions. When it comes to health care services in rural and northern Canada, we need the facts from the long form census. When it comes to child care, recreation, or infrastructure, we need the mandatory long form census.

As the member of Parliament for Churchill, I have never heard any of my constituents say that the mandatory long form census compromises the right to privacy. Many people, however, have told me that the absence of the long form census will serve to silence a part of Canada that is all too often not heard.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in the House and speak to the bill before us, Bill C-47, which looks at the budget and the economic policies taken by the government.

Essentially, this is a budget that people back home in the riding that I have the honour of representing, the riding of Churchill, know it is not a budget for them. In fact, it is a budget for very few Canadians out there, often Canadians who already doing quite okay, when we should be looking, especially in a time of recession, at what might benefit everyone and at particular areas, whether it is industries, regions or communities, that have faced particular hardships as a result of this most recent economic recession.

I am proud to stand in the House along with so many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to speak out on how this budget has done little to support Canadians. While we are happy to see that some of our measures and work in the area of employment insurance and in some small ways in certain other areas have been heard, the vast majority of proposals and the spirit of looking out for average Canadians and the challenges they face has not been heard in this budget. It certainly is not reflected.

This budget does something that is not only counterproductive to the situation we currently face but also presents a dangerous trend when we look ahead at our future. Budget 2010 presents ample evidence of a tax strategy that begins to take away increasingly from average Canadians and benefits more and more those who are well off and work in sectors that have been very successful.

The government continues to drive the country deeper into debt so it can give tax cuts to profitable corporations: $21 billion worth since 2008 and $60 billion worth by the time they are fully implemented in 2014. During that same period, the government, by its own reckoning, will add $162.4 billion to the public debt, $60 billion more than the 10 previous years of surplus erased.

While the government is giving corporations a free pass on contributing to the country's financial recovery, it is planning to take a big chunk out of the pockets of Canadian workers. Over the next four years, the Prime Minister plans to rake in over $19 billion more in EI premiums than is paid out.

While the oil and gas and banking sectors have benefited from tax breaks, the same has not been the case for the average Canadian. In fact, with the increase in EI premiums, that burden has been increased.

There are specific stories in the region that I represent that speak to how this budget has not responded to people's needs. I would like to first begin by looking at how this budget does very little when it comes to the needs voiced by aboriginal Canadians.

I have the honour of representing 33 first nations and many Métis communities in my area. When I visit these communities and hear from aboriginal peoples in northern Manitoba, they speak out for the need for adequate funding for education.

Just this afternoon I was speaking out on a new study that showed record high dropout rates among aboriginal Canadians in my own home province of Manitoba, something that is so disheartening to see in the year 2010 when so many of us know the value of an education. However, the reason we see these rates is because the federal government, both under the Liberal leadership and now under the Conservatives, fails to adequately fund education on reserves and fails to adequately fund post-secondary education across the board for first nations and Métis students. This prevents them from accessing opportunities that we all know are key to them progressing into the future.

We know that $10 million were put aside for the work around missing and murdered aboriginal women, many of these women coming from the region that I represent. However, instead of the government listening to organizations, like the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Sisters in Spirit organization, it has chosen a very narrow approach. While work to collect statistics and the policing approach is important, we also need to be looking at specific measures in terms of domestic violence and violence perpetrated against aboriginal women, as well as awareness and prevention in that area, something we do not see this pocket of money going toward.

In this budget, there is no new money for water or waste water management in aboriginal communities. This week, I have stood in this House to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government what they are going to do about the third world living conditions in the first nations that I represent. The Island Lake communities face some of the worst water and sewer conditions in all of Canada. These conditions are shocking to Canadians. Yet, this is the reality for some Canadians today. This budget does nothing to address this dire need in northern Manitoba.

Housing is another area in need of significant action. There is a housing crisis not only in aboriginal communities but in northern communities and communities in general across the country, many of which have fast-growing populations. Yet there is no new money for housing. Aboriginal people, the people of northern Manitoba, northerners in general, all these groups are affected by a shortage of adequate housing.

Another issue with a direct negative impact on the communities that I represent is the way the government has handled foreign ownership.

My hometown, which depends on the mining industry, has seen the buying out of the company that ran the mine. It was formerly Inco; now it is Vale. We look forward to negotiating with this company, which put Canadian workers out of work when they went on strike for benefits, a proper pension plan, and a decent commitment to the people of the region, who allow these companies to produce such profits. Yet, the current government failed to say no to the foreign buyout of Inco, a profitable Canadian company. Moreover, it is continuing that trend, amending the Investment Canada Act in this budget bill so that only significant investments will now be reviewed.

The people who live in the communities I represent need a federal government that will stand up to foreign corporations, that will protect our resources, and that will protect Canadian working people and their communities. This budget would not do any of these things.

Smaller rural and northern communities require assurances that our essential services will be supported. This budget attacks our postal service through the withdrawal of international mailers from the monopoly that Canada Post now holds.

This means a reduction in the revenue that Canada Post depends on to provide service to rural and northern communities, which often do not fit a market model. In The Pas, Kelsey, Thompson, Flin Flon, and in communities across northern Manitoba, we fear that postal service to rural Canada will be the first to be cut back. We are already seeing some reduction in service. Yet, instead of having a government that will step up and recognize the importance of delivering this service to Canadians, no matter where they live, we see a move toward privatization and a lack of support for the crown corporations we rely on.

Finally, the state of infrastructure in the north is alarming. We have heard a great deal about the current government's commitment to infrastructure in its stimulus package.

I can tell members that there is a great deal of concern when it comes to ensuring that these infrastructure projects go out in time. I represent communities that are isolated, that have a very short construction period, and that are concerned about running out of time, despite having tried their best to get these projects rolling as soon as possible.

So, all in all, there are many ways in which this budget would not serve the interests of northern Manitoba. That is why I find it so disappointing.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the four Island Lake First Nations in northern Manitoba are facing third world living conditions when it comes to water and sewer services. They are facing serious health and sanitation consequences.

The government has claimed that investments in water and sewer services on first nations has been a priority. Plants have been built but there are no water lines. There are no dependable water trucks. There is no plan to invest in all of these communities in the next five-year capital plan.

When will the government act to not let these first nations down? When will the government act to resolve this crisis?

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her impassioned speech regarding this very problematic bill. I would like to hear about something she referenced.

What does the government's approach mean in terms of perhaps contributing to that dark history of immigration and the way we have treated refugees and immigrants in the past? Is this not part of a very dark series of encounters and actions that we have had toward refugees and immigrants? Will we come to regret this later on?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my colleague did a good job of presenting his and his party's position on this bill.

Since we are discussing some of the problems with this approach to free trade with Panama, I would like him to comment on why the government so badly wants to create this kind of relationship, and not just with Panama. The same thing happened with Colombia.

Where are the Conservatives coming from, and why are they so determined to pass this kind of bill, which is against the values and interests of Canadian workers, not to mention the values of justice and fair trade, which are really important to our country?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, absolutely this is a real failure to show interest in building a bilateral free trade relationship, and certainly engaging in an agreement without dealing with such a glaring absence of accountability and transparency on the part of Panama. One would think it would be interested or enthusiastic about entering into trade with Canada. Instead of Canada saying that the government is interested but has some serious concerns with respect to the area of tax havens, and of course we are saying with respect to labour issues and the environment, the government is throwing its hands up and going for the lowest common denominator instead of making a real difference.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, October 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-46, Canada-Panama Free Trade Act.

I rise, along with many of my colleagues who have spoken in this House, opposed to this free trade agreement. We have brought forward a critique and recommendations that speak to our concerns about this free trade agreement and about the government approach to bilateral free trade agreements.

I would like to begin with a story that I was witness to just a while ago in my home constituency. I was in The Pas, Manitoba, one of the communities that I represent, at the announcement of federal infrastructure funds that were to be used to help the local pulp and paper mill to develop a more green approach in its production.

There was quite a bit of support for this initiative. While we were sitting and talking about how important this commitment was to the plant and to the community, one of the speeches by a government member referenced the importance of bilateral free trade agreements to Canadians as a whole.

The irony is that the pulp and paper mill we were in is across the street from a lumber mill that has been shut down for a year and a half as a result of the softwood lumber agreement. Some people who were laid off from the lumber plant now work in the pulp and paper plant. This community was hurt a great deal as a result of that shutting down. Many jobs were lost. And the community was saddened by the wholesale export of trees that come from our area only to be processed south of the border or overseas.

Everybody knew that the government did not stand up for the people in my community or the people across Canada who depend on the jobs in the lumber industry. Free trade agreements are not always fair. Some have caused the loss of good-paying jobs and the loss of support for communities all across our country.

The irony is that we are hearing about how these free trade agreements will make Canadians' lives better, when in fact we know that this not the case.

Bilateral free trade agreements usually favour the dominant economy and ultimately facilitate a degree of predatory access to the less powerful economy. This is more apt to happen in bilateral agreements than in multilateral ones. In this case, Canada is the dominant economy, and this deal is characterized by imbalance.

Since this is true, why do we keep negotiating these kinds of trade agreements? Does the government not care about this imbalance? Does it have no qualms about the challenges that will come of our being given greater access to Panama, whether we are concentrating on resource extraction or on extending our export-driven interests? It is a question that needs to be asked.

Canada's reputation is built on multilateral co-operation, consideration of human and environmental rights, and fairness in our work at the international level.

We have seen, certainly in the area of foreign affairs, a different approach on the part of the government, an approach that throws away some of the core values that Canada was built on, and on which my generation was raised.

When we look at this trade agreement, there are some points that cause concern. Labour rights are something that we in Canada uphold and respect. We believe that working people have the right to form unions and negotiate for a decent wage and decent benefits. This is not the case in Panama. If we go through with this agreement, we will be going against Canada's tradition of fairness for workers.

In July, there was a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama. Several workers were killed, over 100 were injured, and over 300 were arrested, including the leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions. This was the government of Panama's brutal reaction to protests against legislation restricting the right to strike and the freedom of association. The legislation provides for up to two years in jail for workers who take their protests to the streets.

It is despicable for us to engage in a trade deal with a government that undertakes this kind of repression toward working people. It is something that we will continue to see as a result of the bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia. But here we have a chance to stand and say no, this is not right. This is a government that denies its own citizens basic rights such as the right to unionize and the right to strike.

Another glaring hole in this free trade agreement is the failure to deal with the fact that Panama is an offshore banking centre and a tax haven, with a serious lack of transparency that displays excessive banking secrecy. We in the NDP have been critical of the government's failure to act against offshore tax havens and tax loopholes that benefit Canadian entrepreneurs. Here we would be engaging in a free trade agreement with a country that turns a blind eye to these destructive practices and is showing no interest in correcting them.

We in the NDP stand in opposition to these elements, which accompany this trade agreement. These elements are either not being looked at or they are being viewed in an unrealistic way. The government apparently thinks it is okay to enter into bilateral free trade agreements with a country like Panama that has such disregard for principles that are important to Canadians.

On the environmental side, there is reference to the existence of an agreement on the environment. But given the government's approach to anything environmental, whether it is in our country or abroad, we doubt that this agreement will be taken seriously.

We understand the importance of trade and trading with countries. In this day and age, we would not be where we are without trade. What we oppose is bilateral free trade agreements that reject fair and sustainable trade. This rejection often generates discontent and increased protectionism. We have all seen the destructive impact of the NAFTA on the U.S. economy and, quite frankly, on our own.

To end, I would like to return perhaps to the people I represent and the way in which we have seen jobs taken away from our area, good paying, community sustaining jobs, as a result of free trade agreements that have failed to put Canadians first. This is one more example of that pattern.