10165 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 155 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, December 4, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 4, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 155 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 155 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 155 (Version officielle) 147 155 04 12 2014 2014/12/04 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36

(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning a conference in London, England, the International Parliamentary Conference Growth for Development, November 18-20, 2014.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in relation to Bill C-21,

An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses . [ English ] The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Canada Act Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) Bill C-640. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-640,

An Act respecting VIA Rail Canada and making consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act . He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would give parliamentarians far more control over the decisions made concerning VIA Rail. It would also allow for a partnership to be established with the communities and industries involved in VIA Rail service. This bill is designed to create the legislative framework that VIA Rail has never had. In the U.S., Amtrak was in rough shape without a legislative framework. Now, with that framework, Amtrak is on the right track.

This company serves far more communities than it used to. We hope to learn from that and improve service in Canada. VIA Rail is in crisis. Ridership is down and many routes have been cancelled. It is time that Parliament took this seriously. Do we really want passenger rail service in Canada? We must not forget that passenger rail service and the rail system built our country. We hope to maintain it for future generations. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) Bill C-641. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-641,

An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of introducing this bill to ensure that federal laws are in harmony with the declaration. When the declaration was adopted in 2007, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called it the path of reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples. Now more than ever, that is the path this country must take. [ English ] I am very honoured to stand here today to introduce the bill,

an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. When the declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, Ban Ki-moon had qualified it as the path to reconciliation between states and indigenous peoples. Indeed, more than ever, that is the path we need to take in the House and in the country. (Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Mr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC) Bill C-642. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-642,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (high profile offender) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my very first private member's bill in this House. I feel confident that my colleagues will see the wisdom of these amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The amendments are meant to address the concerns of any community that is home to a halfway house that houses high profile offenders after their release. In my riding of Saint John, a situation arose last year when three such offenders were released to a halfway facility without warning to the community.

This prompted a wave of fear throughout the community that I am sure is not unique to Saint John, but it was nonetheless unsettling. This bill asks that an offender's name and photograph be posted on the Correctional Service website, along with any previous convictions, date of release, destination, and any conditions attached to the statutory release.

The bill also requires that Correctional Service Canada provide communities with notice of the proposed release of any high profile offenders, hold public consultations with community representatives, including police, and take into account the views of the host community. I look forward to hearing the views of my colleagues on these proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I also hope that it addresses the concerns raised by my constituents in Saint John. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Species at Risk Act Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions from constituents in my riding as well as that of my colleague, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands , with respect to SARA, the Species at Risk Act. The petitioners request that the House of Commons rescind the Species at Risk Act and replace it with something that encourages voluntary implementation.

(1010) Protection of Sage Grouse Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the other petitions are with respect to the sage grouse. They are signed by residents in my riding and in Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The petitioners are asking that the House of Commons rescind this strategy and replace it with something that ensures strategies are created with formal input from landowners. The same applies for the third petition.

Sex Selection Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many Canadians pointing out that gendercide has created a global crisis of gender imbalance, resulting in violence and the human trafficking of girls. The petitioners are calling upon members of Parliament to condemn the discrimination of girls that is occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

National Sustainable Seafood Day Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition calls upon the House of Commons to introduce a national sustainable seafood day. It calls upon the government to designate March 18 as national sustainable seafood day. The petitioners are concerned about overfishing and destructive fishing practices in Canada.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, with thousands of signatures, petitioners call upon the government to immediately adopt a ban on the importation of shark fin to Canada.

Canada Post Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of constituents in my riding concerning the reduction of Canada Post services. The petition calls upon the government to reverse these cuts to Canada Post and look instead for an option to fill the void, such as postal banking.

Human Rights Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition is from a number of individuals in St. John's and other communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to ensure that the Government of Canada takes action in allowing individuals to have access to all different professions and not be limited by their physical appearance.

The petitioners state that the citizens of Canada have a right to be accepted for their physical appearance whether or not they exhibit body modifications, have disabilities, or are minorities in the workplace. Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also signed by a number of individuals in St. John's and other communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petitioners state that Canada does not recognize transpersons who identify as a particular gender without genital reconstructive surgery or persons who identify as neither male nor female, and that the effects of denying correct gender markers to transcitizens denies them the freedom to fully express who they are. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to ensure the Government of Canada takes action to ensure equal rights for all citizens by allowing all citizens to identify truly to themselves.

Employment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, about 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot access a full-time, stable job. What does that mean? They are working part time, they are working freelance, they are self-employed, many are working for free as unpaid interns, and they have no access to a workplace pension, benefits, or job security. The folks who have signed this petition come from all over the greater Toronto area, and they are urging the government to support a national urban worker strategy that would build up a broader and stronger safety net for precarious workers in Canada.

Pensions Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my petition calls for the improvements to retirement security of the 62% of Canadian workers without any workplace pension. The petitioners call for expansion of the Canada pension plan and specifically for the government to reject any changes that would allow employers to renege on existing defined benefit pension promises, and to refrain from allowing the conversion of defined benefit plans to so-called shared risk plans that would permit the subsequent reduction of pension benefits paid by retirees.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from people in my riding, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who are concerned about agriculture, specifically, the freedom to use seeds to grow any variety of grain or vegetable now that more and more of those seeds are being patented and controlled by the agri-food industry. These people are concerned about the fact that in some countries, using, saving and exchanging seeds may now be considered illegal and punishable by law. I am presenting this petition in the name of biodiversity and small farmers' ability to do their work.

(1015) [ English ] Animal Welfare Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents of Burnaby—Douglas and across Canada. The petitioners note that we have an obligation to protect animals in care from needless cruelty and suffering. They are calling on the Government of Canada to recognize that the use of electric shock collars on household pets is barbaric and unnecessary. The petitioners also want the government to ban the sale and use of electric shock collars in Canada, as has been done in other countries.

I have had many articulate and well-meaning constituents come into my office and talk to me about this issue, so I would urge the government to take this petition seriously.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 755 and 761 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 755-- Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe : With regard to the Federal Internship for Newcomers Program: (

a) how many applications did Citizenship and Immigration Canada receive, (

i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (

b) how many applications were approved, (

i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (

c) how many applications were rejected, (

i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (

d) how many positions were available, (

i) in total, (ii) by year, (iii) by month; (

e) how many applicants have remained in Canada today; (

f) how many applicants have found full-time, permanent employment; and (

g) what was the budget allocated to this program, (

i) by year, (ii) by city? (Return tabled) Question No. 761-- Hon. Hedy Fry : With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency, for each year since 2004 inclusively: (

a) how many Reminder Letters has the Charities Directorate issued to charities; (

b) how many formal complaints have been received concerning the political activities of charities; (

c) how many political-activity audits have been commenced, (

i) of those audits, how many have been concluded, (ii) how long did each audit last; and (

d) what has been (

i) the total expenditure on the political-activity audit program in each fiscal year since the program was established, (ii) the total expenditure on each completed audit? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Economic and Fiscal Update—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley concerning the economic and fiscal update by the Minister of Finance on November 12, 2014. I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon.

House leader of the official opposition for their interventions. [ English ] The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that on November 12, 2014, the Minister of Finance delivered the government's official economic and fiscal update to a private audience of financial professionals rather than in the House. This, he argued, obstructed members' access to that critical information, which is required to fulfill their parliamentary functions, thereby constituting contempt of Parliament if not a breach of members' privileges.

The hon. government House leader responded that since the economic and fiscal update is not the budget, it is not governed by the Standing Orders. Consequently, the minister was not obligated to deliver that statement in the House and, in fact, there is a long-standing practice of the government making announcements outside the House on a range of policy issues. The release of and accessibility to information is, of course, a matter of importance to all members since it touches the role of members as legislators.

The Chair shares Speaker Parent's views when he indicated on November 6, 1997 at page 1618 of Debates that this role should not be trivialized. In fact, we should take every opportunity to underline its significance in our system of responsible government. That is not to say, however, that every proceeding or activity related to delivering or accessing information by members implicitly involves their parliamentary duties.

For instance, in 2009, Speaker Milliken was asked to determine whether the public release of the government's third report on the economic action plan made in Saint John, New Brunswick, was a breach of privilege.

In a ruling on October 5, 2009, Speaker Milliken stated: Matters of press conferences or release of documents, the policy initiatives of the government, are not ones that fall within the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House unless they happen to be made in the House itself. [ Translation ] It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference, or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event]. [ English ] In fact, a review of economic and fiscal updates delivered by the Minister of Finance has revealed that, since 2009, the minister has provided this update to a business audience in various provinces, with last year's being delivered to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce on November 12, 2013.

Furthermore, the Chair can find no cases of questions of privilege or points of order in relation to these updates. [ Translation ] In addition, Speakers have consistently ruled that there are certain fundamental conditions that must exist in order for it to constitute a matter of contempt or privilege.

As O’Brien and Bosc states at page 109: In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. [ English ] Based on the precedents established by previous Speakers, I cannot find evidence that members were obstructed in the performance of their parliamentary functions.

Accordingly, I must conclude that there are not sufficient grounds to arrive at a finding of a prima facie breach of privilege in this case. I thank the House for its attention.

Government Orders Government Orders (1020) [ Translation ] Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2 Bill C-43—Time Allocation Motion Hon.

Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That in relation to Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. [ English ] The Speaker : There will now be a 30-minute question period.

I will ask members to keep their questions and comments to around about a minute and responses to a similar length of time. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley . Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, sadly, it is no surprise that the government has chosen to shut down debate yet again. I guess the only surprise is that the government House leader has not memorized the actual statement he has made, because he has made it 83 times. The government has shut down debate 83 times on important pieces of legislation, more than any other government in Canadian history in wartime or in peace.

On this one, a budget implementation bill of 460 pages, in the few speeches we have heard from government members, they have cited all sorts of things that do not even exist within this budget implementation bill. What does exist, in a time of economic fragility, is a rip-off of the employment insurance program of $550 million that may create as few as 800 jobs, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is more than half a million dollars per job. It would also rip social assistance away from refugee claimants. That does not affect the federal treasury whatsoever. That is contained in this bill.

Is it because there are so many terrible things in this bill and there is so little to help the Canadian economy at a time when it needs the help that the government is shutting down debate? Is it because of outright embarrassment for the lack of ambition and foresight contained in this massive omnibus bill? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. This budget was brought down in February of last year. We have had ample opportunity to look through the budget.

The budget implementation act no. 2 came in this October, and again, we have had debate in the House on that. The member referenced the economy. Since forming government in 2006, and even going into the global downturn, we have had the strongest economic growth of any country in the G7. Our economy has been managed. We have come forward with economic action plans and a strategy. When we moved into a global downturn, we said that it was going to be a difficult time, but we had a strategy. Whether it be by the OECD or the IMF, Canada is recognized as the place to be.

There have been 1.2 million jobs created since the downturn. The second part of the budget is part of that plan. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. He is the instrument that is used to bring in time allocation. As has been pointed out, this majority Conservative/Reform Party government has now brought in time allocation a record high number of times. No other government in the history of Canada has brought in time allocation or used it in the manner the current government has.

That is not to mention the huge budget implementation bills that have ramifications for numerous pieces of legislation. The Conservatives almost sneak a legislative agenda into these budget legislation bills. Why is the government House leader being so disrespectful to basic democracy in the House of Commons?

(1025) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, again, Canadians expect their government to govern. They expect their government to make decisions. They expect their government to be transparent in the strategy and the plan we had in this budget in the early spring and again with the budget implementation bill in October. They expect the government not only to make promises and commitments but to take action on those promises and commitments, which is exactly what our government is doing with the budget implementation bill, no. 2.

We are going to continue to keep those commitments to Canadians by introducing and advancing important legislation. The hon. member from the Liberal Party who just asked the question knows that it is common practice to include various other measures in a budget. His party did it. It is common practice. It is nothing new. It is nothing groundbreaking. It simply reflects the central role of the budget in a government's agenda. The bottom line is that this budget implementation bill supports our low-tax plan. It supports plans to increase jobs and also increase skills within our workforce. [ Translation ] Mr.

Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we often discover that there are things we would really like to talk about, but the problem is that time allocation does not allow us to do so. The best example is that the government took $500 million that could have gone to the unemployed. I am sure that during the holidays, the unemployed would have liked to share $500 million. It is the holiday season. There are presents to buy and special groceries to get. Now, apparently, we cannot talk about it.

One important thing that is not in this legislation is a rationale for taking $500 million and giving a credit to businesses. The problem is that the Conservatives are referring to a document prepared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That document does not exist. The federation itself said that the minister is referring to a document that it never wrote. Can my colleague explain to me how it is that the government is taking $500 million away from the unemployed based on a non-existent document? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr.

Speaker, Canada has one of the best programs for unemployed individuals. Part of what we do in Canada is encourage people to go back to work. In fact, we have seen that. We have seen this country have one of the lowest unemployment rates during the recession, and we have been able to create 1.2 million net new jobs. The majority of these jobs are in the private sector, and they are full-time jobs. My hon. friend asks why we do not just give more money to the unemployed. When we speak to those individuals who are looking for work, they are saying that they want to be certain that they can find jobs.

They want the government to invest in areas where they can increase their skills, enhance their jobs, and help them find jobs. That is exactly what we are doing. Again, we are focusing on the issues that matter most to Canadians. We are seeing that our job growth is very positive, but we are also seeing people having more hope in being able to enhance their skill levels. Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister of state, who has been in my riding talking to my constituents many times. I would like to correct some of my colleagues.

Under the strong, stable majority Conservative government we have had, Canadian democracy and the Canadian economy have been something other nations have marvelled at and have tried to duplicate. We are one of the top nations in the world. When we look at the opinions of our national colleagues, we see that. One hundred per cent of the families in Etobicoke Centre with children under the age of 18 will benefit from our government's new family tax-cut plan. Parents in my riding of Etobicoke Centre will be pleased with this new money. They know that families should benefit from the surplus, not the government.

They also know the numerous positive social and physical effects of keeping their kids active in sports and fitness. Could the Minister of State for Finance please tell us how BIA no. 2 is going to help parents get their kids involved in fitness activities? Could he tell us specifically how it will help low-income families put their kids in sports programs?

(1030) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for the good work he does as a member of Parliament. He asks difficult questions in caucus. He advocates not only for his constituency but for Ukraine and for groups he has a real interest in. He works hard. With respect to economic action plan 2014, no. 2, I am pleased to tell the House that the government will be doubling the children's fitness tax credit, increasing the maximum amount from $500 to $1,000. We are also making it refundable. We are delivering on the commitment we made in 2011.

In addition, making the credit refundable will increase benefits to low-income families who want to see their children involved in sports and fitness activities. We understand the importance of organized sports, such as hockey, gym, and those types of things. People on low incomes cannot afford that. Doubling the child fitness tax credit is good news for families who want to see their children involved in fitness activities. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, when we had officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada before committee on the measure in the BIA that would allow provinces to implement residency requirements for refugees, they said that there was no data to suggest that this measure would act as a deterrent or save any money. Why would the government want to implement a measure it says would do both of these things and then limit debate? Why not pull that measure out and have it as a free-standing bill? Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to helping all newcomers to Canada, including genuine refugees.

We want to see newcomers to Canada integrate into our country and into our society and fully contribute to our economy and to our communities. Make no mistake. Canada has the fairest and most generous immigration system in the world. I think the Canadian public understands this, and I want to make sure that the New Democratic Party also understands this. We can have great confidence in Canada's values and compassion. Many people from around the world aspire to come to Canada, because they recognize that this is a country of opportunity and hope.

We also recognize that it is the provinces' jurisdiction to deal with these social programs. We want to make certain that they understand that they have the ability to provide benefits through a timely process. It is a provincial decision. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, since we are about to impose time allocation on report stage debate in the House, I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask about the committee's work on this bill.

The first point is that it does not seem to me that the committee properly considered the fact that there is very little for veterans in Bill C-43 . I would have thought that the committee would have spent more time on omissions in the bill as well as the things that are wrong about the bill. The second point I want to make is about something that is a little more detailed and that I do not believe the finance committee considered. Bill C-43 contains some changes to the Industrial Design Act.

Budget 2014 said that there would be legislation to implement certain treaties, and one particular change in the Industrial Design Act says that a design is registerable if the design is not contrary to public morality or order. My questions to the minister are as follows: why did the finance committee not consider this bill in more detail, how is the government intending to regulate the industry based on this line in the Industrial Design Act, and is that change related to a treaty?

(1035) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements of this budget implementation act that deal with industry. Intellectual property is an example. There were certain amendments made to this bill that deal with intellectual property. These come out of amendments that were included in budget implementation act 1. These amendments are intended to move us forward in the Madrid protocol, in the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, and in the Nice agreement.

Amendments in BIA 2 would implement the final two international agreements, the Patent Law Treaty and the Hague agreement relating to patents and industrial design. When he talks about the Industrial Design Act, as far as I understand, those are the measures that he is talking about. Our government understands that reducing red tape, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, is central to Canada's economic growth. Reducing red tape makes certain that our businesses can compete abroad and are not on an uneven playing field.

When we recognize these international developments and sign on to them, it helps industry. Signing on to these protocols is part of what this budget implementation act would do, and that is why it is so important that this bill gets passed through the House. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very curious about his definition of transparency.

The bill is 460 pages long and amends dozens of laws, including some that have nothing to do with the budget For example, not so long ago, the House was studying Bill C-585 , which would have left refugees without a dime for months upon their arrival in Canada, which was not very encouraging. Furthermore, debate was cut short. The bill was withdrawn and, even though it has nothing to do with the budget, included in this budget implementation bill. Moreover, debate on the budget, and therefore on the bill, is being limited. Is that transparency? Is that his definition of transparency? [ English ] Hon.

Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, these measures are transparent. They have been in the media. The budget was released last February and the budget implementation act was released in October. There has been a month and a half of transparency when members could look at the budget and see what is in this bill. The member talked about welfare for refugees. I wish that the NDP would stand in the House and recognize that Canada is the most fair and generous country in the world to refugees, and certainly to immigrants. Canadians have no tolerance, however, for those who would abuse the system.

When refugees come to this country from refugee camps, for example, we give them as much as we can to give them a good start here in Canada. That very well may mean health care that some of us do not receive, but if they are not genuine refugees but bogus refugees trying to beat the system, we want to be certain that they do not receive better health care services than the average Canadian. Mr. Jay Aspin (Nipissing—Timiskaming, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record of standing up for the interests of consumers.

Every consumer benefits from our GST cut, and more than 10 million Canadians have opened a tax-free savings account. We believe Canadian consumers also deserve access to credit on fair and transparent terms. That is why we have taken action to protect Canadians who use credit cards by banning unsolicited credit card cheques, requiring clear and simple information, providing timely advance notice of rates and fee changes, and ensuring prepaid cards never expire. My question is to the Minister of State for Finance . How will this budget help the consumers in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming?

(1040) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for the question and also for his hard work for his constituents and for the whole northern part of Ontario, whether it be the Ring of Fire or other areas. In caucus and in meeting with him, I know the member has a real passion for his riding and for the industries up there. The member brought forward a very good point, and that is the point on consumers: consumer conduct, a consumer code, a consumer agenda. That is the brand that this government is very pleased to be under, the brand of looking out for consumers.

While both opposition parties advocate for higher taxes, taxes that are going to affect every consumer and every family and every mom and dad, we are the only party that is standing up for consumers. We want to do that by lowering taxes and by making sure that we can put money back into their pockets. We have also taken action to improve low-cost bank accounts and expand no-cost banking options for more than seven million Canadians.

As we go forward in the next budget and as we look to this budget implementation bill, Canadians can be assured that we will do all we can to better the plight of consumers, of Canadians, of families, of pensioners, of seniors, and of all those people who keep our economy strong. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we live in a funny world. In recent years, we have seen lots of trends, including speed dating, as though people needed to date in a hurry.

I have the impression that something like “speed parliamentarism” is emerging, because they are trying to sell us all the extraordinary measures that are supposedly in this bill in about 15 minutes and we cannot debate them. That is the purpose of this measure. The debate should revolve around the reasons why the government is bulldozing the parliamentary system, which gives each member the chance to speak on behalf of his or her constituents on such an important and sizeable bill. Nothing is being said about that. I would like to hear what the government representative has to say about that.

What is the basic reason for bulldozing the parliamentary rules for the 83rd time? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on speed dating. I will leave that up to the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. Let me be very clear that a budget implementation bill allows us to implement the budget. A budget implementation bill is brought forward in two different parts, number one and number two. Canadians understand that this budget implementation bill is part of the plan that the Conservative Party of Canada has been rolling out, calling it the economic action plan.

It is one that the OECD, the IMF, and all countries around the world recognize as being a leader plan. When we go to G7 and G20 countries and encourage other countries to come to up to a level, whether it be in banking or in increasing employment, they look to Canada. That is why Bloomberg, for example, says that Canada is one of the best places to invest and is the second-best place to start a business. Of all the countries in the world, Canada is where we want to be.

That is because we have a Prime Minister like ours, it is because we have a finance minister like ours, and it is because we have a plan like ours. The opposition wants to stall this plan. Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite talk in the last few days about this extraordinary transparency and how most of the measures in this bill were announced months ago. In fact, a couple of provisions were neither announced months ago nor had any consultation.

On the provisions related to the port authorities, not a single port authority in this country has been consulted, not a single municipality with a port authority in this country has been consulted. When we asked questions at the technical briefing, this was confirmed by staff. Why did the government not consult with anybody before bringing these measures forward? Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, the consultation process is one like we have never seen before in Canada, because we are active. We are already consulting on the budget for next year. We go across the country.

The Minister of Finance began in Toronto a number of weeks ago. This week I will be in the west, consulting with Canadians in regard to what they want to see in the budget next year. There have been consultations throughout the entire process. Canadians tell us this. They thank us for allowing them to appear before the Minister of Finance or the minister of state or the finance committee. They thank us for the good work that the member for Edmonton—Leduc is doing. They thank us for giving them a consultation process like they never had when the Liberal Party was in power. We are listening to Canadians.

That is why we see measures being brought forward in budget implementation acts. It is not because some backroom party hack is developing policy. That was the old way. We listen to Canadians and we implement the measures that they want to see implemented. (1045) [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to rise to talk about a time allocation motion and to tell the House what I think about the Conservatives. I say “Conservatives” because even my colleague spoke about the Conservative Party of Canada rather than the Government of Canada.

He spoke as though the Conservative Party was the government when that is not really how the country should be managed. The Conservatives see Parliament as something useless that gets in the way of their ideology. That is why they are always trying to pass their decisions as quickly as possible in the House without taking Parliament's opinion into consideration. They have been doing this for three and a half years. The Conservatives have no consideration for parliamentarians' opinions; yet, those opinions should be a primary consideration. The executive should take Parliament's opinion into account.

These two things should be separate, but with the Conservatives, they have basically become one. I do not think that is good for our democracy. They should consider and respect Parliament's opinion. In order to do so, they have to give parliamentarians the opportunity to speak and express their opinions. That is not what they do, so I am asking the Conservatives why they do not have any consideration for Parliament. [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, we are encouraging debate. Members of Parliament have had, at different stages, ample opportunity to stand in this House and debate.

They have had ample opportunity to bring this to committee and to debate. The budget was brought down in February, the budget implementation act no. 1 came shortly after that, and then no. 2 came in October. The member talks about the number of things in the budget. We obviously are bringing forward measures that we have made commitments to in elections and platforms and we are acting on recommendations that have come out of committees. However, there is other legislation that would be amended by this bill. For example, there is the Auditor General Act.

The Auditor General has brought forward certain measures, and we have incorporated some of those into the budget implementation act. There is also the Asia–Pacific Foundation of Canada Act. Different acts would be changed because recommendations come forward that we can implement. There is the Broadcasting Act and the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. These acts will be amended because of parliamentary recommendations in many cases. In some cases it is as a result of parliamentary reports or because they are just good practices.

In fact, we have accepted some measures from the opposition parties as well. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, members will know that I have the honour of representing the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, which is both an urban and a rural riding. I have many farmers in the riding. I am really proud of the work that our government has done in support of farmers. In the past, we have introduced the agricultural flexibility fund, we have offered support to hog farmers to restructure their debt, and we have allowed grain farmers to have marketing freedom.

In every one of those cases, the New Democrats and the Liberals have opposed those measures. This particular bill has a technical amendment in it that would extend the lifetime capital gains exemption of farm property. Basically, this would make it easier for farmers to pass their farms on to the next generation. I know my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance , has done a lot of consultation over this period.

I wonder if he has been able to figure out in his consultations why the New Democrats and the Liberals oppose measures that would improve the chances of our farmers to succeed in this country and produce some of the best-quality food in the world.

(1050) Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, again, I want to applaud our Minister of International Trade for the very good work he has done in enhancing trade agreements around the world. The budget implementation act deals with issues with respect to the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, an agreement which we have had for a number of years, but which needs some amendments. My hon. member brought forward the issue of agriculture. As a member of Parliament representing an agricultural constituency, and being a farmer myself, I recognize that many of these free trade agreements are driven by agriculture.

There has never been a government in our country that has done more for agriculture than this government. Whether it be new markets, or giving farmers the freedom to market their grain, one thing has been constant. The New Democratic Party time after time has stood here and voted against farmers. We have defended supply management and agriculture in Canada. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense.

The government says that it listens to Canadians but the Minister of the Environment does not even want to put down her newspaper to listen to the questions about her riding in question period. What is more, the Minister of Veterans Affairs has completely botched his file. Next year, in 2015, people should remember the number 15, because the NDP listened to Canadians. We are proposing a minimum wage of $15 an hour and child care that costs a maximum of $15 a day. Meanwhile, this government is proposing to cut taxes for 15% of the richest families in Canada. It is completely ridiculous.

Will the member opposite support the NDP's measures to help Canadian families? [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson : Mr. Speaker, we heard the member list a litany of things that the New Democratic Party has brought forward. I would suggest maybe that this is part of the reason why the New Democratic Party is in the difficulty it is today. The first measure she brought forward was a minimum wage. Everyone in the House recognizes that as being under provincial jurisdiction. She also talked about the Canada family tax package. Every family with children under 18 will benefit from our tax breaks.

The majority of those benefits go to low and middle-income Canadians with children. The NDP wants to take it away. The average cash into the pockets of most middle and lower-income families Canadian families, only through that one measure of the family tax package, will be $1,100. We bring these measures to keep money in the pockets of Canadians. The opposition parties would take those away. Families understand that. That is why families are supportive and know that the Conservative Party of Canada is the best bet for them as a government. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. (1055) [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Call in the members.

(1135) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 300) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calkins Cannan Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Richards Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sorenson Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Benskin Bevington Boivin Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Byrne Caron Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Jones Julian Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Toone Tremblay Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 108 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Rouge National Urban Park Act Bill C-40—Time Allocation Motion Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That in relation to Bill C-40,

An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I would remind hon. members to keep their interventions to around one minute. That goes for the questions as well as the responses. I remind hon. members that this 30-minute question period is predominantly for questions by opposition members, although time will be provided for government members, albeit shorter in length. Questions, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, next year at this time when the government is history, it will still go into the history books for two sad records. The first will be for having had more pieces of its legislation rejected by the courts than any other government in our nation's history. Half a dozen times now courts have said that its legislation is badly botched work and have thrown it back to the Conservatives. The second, perhaps even more important, is the sad record of having some 84 time allocation and closure motions. That has never been seen before in Canadian history.

There has never been such a lack of respect for parliamentary debate and dialogue, with the results that I have mentioned earlier, of more bills being rejected than of any other government. The questions really are why this bill and why now? First, despite the laudable principle in creating the bill, it undermines the National Parks Act. Obviously the government wants to hide that fact from the Canadian public, which is why it is shutting down debate. Second, why now, why this morning?

Of course, we have Bill C-586 that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has brought forward, and there were five witnesses scheduled to speak at the procedure and House affairs committee: Samara Canada, Fair Vote Canada, Friends of the Reform Act, Democracy Act, and Professor Nelson Wiseman, all wanting to speak on reform and to get their message across. Obviously the House leader disagrees, so the real question is, why are the Conservatives trying to disrupt the procedure and House affairs committee and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public on Bill C-40 ?

(1140) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering directly a couple of questions. First, why this bill? It is because this bill would establish Canada's first urban national park, something that is very, very strongly supported, I believe in the last poll I saw, by some 88% of the residents in the affected area, and in fact overwhelming supported, I believe, by residents across the greater Toronto area who will benefit from Rouge Park being in place. Why now? It is because the opposition has made it clear that it will do everything to stop the establishment of Canada's first urban national park.

Finally, I feel a bit like a broken record because I am always reminding the hon. opposition House leader that time allocation is not a device for limiting debate, but a scheduling device. In fact, compared with the British Parliament, even with our use of this scheduling device, we provide more than double the amount of debate on bills in this Parliament than in Britain on similar respective bills going through the process and becoming law.

With this motion in place, the bill will have, at a very minimum, eight times the amount of debate at third reading stage that a similar bill would have in the British Parliament. There is ample debate. There is a significant amount. The real reason is that the NDP just tries to stop anything being done by this government. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, another day, another time allocation motion. The hon. member said these now total some 84 motions. I am not keeping track because I have lost track.

This must be a record on a record, because it is time allocation on a park bill, for goodness sakes, which started out with a broad-based agreement in the House where it went on a voice vote to committee, and then it just went south. What is amusing to me is that we can fix the bill with a very small amendment. However, in its classic governing style, where everyone else is wrong, whether the Queen's Park government, the thousands of petitioners living in and around the area, the environmentalists or even the farmers, the government believes everyone else is wrong and that it is right.

As a result, the Conservatives are just jamming the bill down the throats of folks, and they will have a national Swiss cheese park. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood rose to speak to this, but of course the process of this park being jammed down the throats of Canadians was initiated by the Hon. Pauline Browes when she was Minister of State for the Environment. She initiated the idea of having an urban national park back under the Brian Mulroney Conservative government.

The hon. member who asked the question was here for 13 long years in government, a long, long time, and had the opportunity to make something happen to advance that process to allow an urban national park to be established, and what happened under that Liberal government? Nothing, not one thing in over a decade was done to advance the process. Finally, our government is making things happen and bringing this to a conclusion. The hon. member says they are supportive of it, but something happened along the way: they changed their minds.

Perhaps it is because their friends at Queen's Park decided there was political hay to be made. Nonetheless, the fact is that even if the Liberals oppose our government establishing Canada's first urban national park in the Rouge because they did not do it and made sure it did not happen for a decade, we will go ahead and get this done and delivered for Canadians, for the people of Scarborough and the people of the greater Toronto area. Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, something absolutely did happen, but the government House leader is completely wrong about what happened.

What happened was that the government took a process where there was consensus at the beginning and managed to lose two-thirds of the support in the House for the bill because it is inflexible and not willing to listen to some reasoned amendments. Everyone in Scarborough, some 88%, as the House leader mentioned, want this park created. Every single Scarborough MP in the House wants this park created. This is going to be the first national urban park and a template for future urban parks, whether they be in Montreal, Vancouver, Victoria, Quebec, or the Northwest Territories, wherever there is an urban setting.

Of course, 80% of Canada's population lives in an urban setting. The government is losing support because it is not willing to make the necessary changes to improve ecological integrity and the rules that currently exist. I hope the minister will finally speak to this bill for the first time in the House to show that she has been paying attention to the file. How many times since the September 2 letter from the Ontario minister of the environment has the minister met to discuss problems? How many times have staff met?

Have there been any meetings or discussions between the Ontario provincial government and the federal government since that September 2 letter to see if we can come to a reasonable agreement and reach consensus on this issue after the government lost it all?

(1145) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I have noticed the province backpedalling from the position that the provincial minister took initially when he came out against it. His position was that the current protection under Ontario law was what the province preferred. Let us look at what that meant. That meant it would allow hunting on the land, something that our bill would prohibit. Under the provincial law there would be no protection under the Species at Risk Act, but there would be under our bill. There would be no effective way of enforcement against waste dumping under existing provincial law,

whereas in our bill we would have enforcement via dedicated officers. There would be no fines for illegal activities, such as poaching or the equivalent, which take place in national parks,

whereas in our bill we would have that protection under the law. One of the most significant differences is where the member talked about the efforts to change this via the notion of ecological integrity by those who are opposed to the bill. This is an urban park. There are over 80 heritage designated buildings and structures that are worthy of protection. They are very important cultural resources. That protection would be lost were those amendments to be made. Should a forest fire occur, we would not be allowed to stop it from burning down that valuable cultural heritage, a critical part of what is there.

That is what the opposition is talking about. Urban national parks reflect not just nature, but important cultural history, archeological history, and the history of economic activity in the form of agriculture. All of those things would be protected by this bill. They are all things that the province wanted to take away. We are not going to put those valuable heritage properties at risk the way the opposition would like us to. Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister being here to explain many of these things today.

Earlier I heard some comments by a Liberal MP who said this was being pushed down people's throats. It is my understanding that there was extensive consultation before this bill was presented in this place. I would ask the minister to please comment on that extensive consultation with stakeholders so that we could have a bill that I believe all Canadians can support. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, of course there has been extensive consultation. As I pointed out, it was initiated under the Brian Mulroney government and, indeed, was very much a grassroots community effort that continued to be led by the hon.

Pauline Browes after she left public life. She has been very involved up to this date in making it happen. In the preparation of this particular proposal, over a hundred organizations within the community participated in the consultation, so it has been broad. What is really critical as we stand on the precipice is the opportunity to actually establish Canada's first urban national park. We have the ability to make it happen and the opposition is standing in the way of the establishment of Canada's first urban national park. It is a very difficult position to explain.

I understand why opposition members keep writhing in contortions, but when we examine their criticisms, they are empty too, and they reveal that the only motive is to keep the Conservative government from establishing Canada's first urban national park. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that time allocation motions are objectionable not simply because they interrupt debate and thorough consideration in the House; they also constantly interrupt committee work.

This is a government that is constantly saying how important committee work is, yet it is constantly making sure that committees cannot do their job. I am supposed to be in the procedure and House affairs committee right now listening to witnesses on the bill from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills , Bill C-586 , Reform Act, 2014, and hearing from Nelson Wiseman, professor at University of Toronto; Democracy Watch; Fair Vote Canada; Friends of the Reform Act; and Samara, but our committee has been cancelled because of this House leader.

I would like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to ask his House leader at some point whether this was on purpose.

(1150) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I do not manage the business affairs of committees and do not even look at that when I deal with this, because we are dealing with the question of getting this important piece of legislation through the House. I would love to not have to resort to measures like this. I would love to have an agreement with the opposition. However, as I indicated, no agreement could be reached, so this is the measure we take. It is important that this happen, that we do get to the point where we actually establish Canada's first urban national park.

The Rouge park will be a tremendous asset for this country and in particular for the greater Toronto area. It is something that has been long anticipated. I can understand that there might perhaps be some partisan motivation in opposition members from Scarborough or Durham wanting to be able to go on the hustings in the next election and be able to say that the government could not get it done, but we can get it done. That is one of the watchwords of this government. We are business-like, we get the job done, we are hard-working and orderly, and this is an example of that approach at work.

We are delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians, in this case for Canada's first urban national park. Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my life fighting for parks and protected areas and I created quite a few. I really wanted to vote for the Rouge park. An urban park is a great idea. I was intending to vote for the bill, until I brought amendments to committee that were dismissed out of hand. Every conservation group—every single one—is now opposed to this bill. This bill would actually weaken the protections that were put in place by the province.

It violates the memorandum of understanding with the province. Ontario now opposes this bill. A few simple amendments could have made the bill better and fixed it, but committee members were busy on their BlackBerrys, mindlessly voting against every amendment without even listening to them. The arrogance of the government on this bill is unspeakable. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I think I have articulated fairly well some of the reasons the existing protections under provincial law fall far short of the protection that would be in place under this law.

Would the current provincial law directly prohibit mining on all lands here? No. Of course, under this statute, under the proposed bill to establish the Rouge national urban park, it would be prohibited. Is there a prohibition on the removal of native plants and fossils on all lands under existing law in Ontario? No, there is not, but there will be, once we have this bill that establishes the Rouge national urban park in place. I could go on and on, whether it has to do with hunting, protection for species at risk, or the question of dumping waste. All of these things are better protected under this bill.

That is why it is such a mystery that people would take a position on the contrary. When members look at the facts, they will see that getting to the finish line not only increases and significantly enhances protection for these lands over the protection they currently enjoy under provincial law, but it will also be a major milestone in establishing Canada's first national urban park, something that is very eagerly anticipated by the people of Scarborough and the people of Durham. Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will save you and the House the painful verbosity of a long, self-serving

preamble. I have but a plain question for the government House leader . Will the proposed new act provide better protection than what is in place now for the existing park? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly “yes” on any of a number of items of straightforward protection. However, there is something more significant: the funding. It is the funding that would establish trails within the park and establish four discovery centres within the park to make it usable, interpretable, and understandable to the people of the community. It would not be just an idea, as it is now.

It would not be just a bunch of land, as it is now, but something that could be used and enjoyed. People would be able to walk through it, travel through it, hike through it, and learn about it, and people could learn about the history of our first nations people there through a discovery centre. Is any of that, one penny of that, on the table from the provincial government? No, there is not one penny, and we know why: the provincial government has no money. We have put forward significant commitments to fund those things and to make them happen, but the opposition wants to stop that from happening.

We are not going to let that happen. We are going to make sure we deliver on this asset, which is environmentally and culturally so very important to this community.

(1155) Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am really confused by the minister because he says that the people of Scarborough want this tiny park. No, the people of Scarborough want a 100-square-kilometre. park. What the government is offering is 40-something. It is already protected right now by a patchwork system of protective measures and by people who have built the park, activists who have stopped development from happening, and people like myself who go and plant trees and bushes and remove invasive species six times a year.

The park is protected by us, the people who are there on the ground and who have been working so hard to create it and protect it. There is a patchwork system of about 12 or 13 different policies and agreements protecting this land. It is not just a piece of land, as the minister says. Why is it the minister is moving time allocation on the bill when clearly there still needs to be more discussion? Why has the minister responsible not spoken to this bill?

Why will they not just do what the community wants and protect the Rouge Park, rather than chopping it up into this tiny piece and not even providing the protective measures that are already in existence with the patchwork system of protective measures that we, the activists on the ground for the last 35 years, have put together? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River , and she does have some understanding of the issues. That would have been a superb question had it been placed in the Ontario legislature.

Everything she said was an indictment of what the Ontario government has done on this file. It was the Ontario government that pulled lands out of the park. It was the one that reduced the size of the proposed protected lands. It was the one that has not actually put any park protection in place for those lands. We are the ones looking to create the urban national park; it is the province that has resiled and broken the memorandum of understanding and the agreement on creating a park of significant size and scale. We are the ones going ahead with doing it, and we still invite and encourage their participation.

We welcome them in. We think that is what is best for the people in the greater Toronto area. York region, Durham, and the cities of Toronto and Scarborough in particular would benefit from this park and from the millions of dollars to establish all the elements that would turn it from an imaginary vision into an actual, real park, finally there on the ground, that people can use. Hon. John McKay : Mr. Speaker, the minister professes to being confused. It is a mystery to him how all of these people and governments could be opposed to the park when they were in favour of the park just six months ago.

Apparently it is just all politics: when all of those thousands of petitioners are saying not to support the bill, it is just politics; when all of the park people and all of the knowledgeable NGOs in the country who started out in favour of the park are now opposed to the park bill in its present form, they just do not know what they are talking about. It is quite remarkable. Apparently the telephone system only works one way. It only goes from Queen's Park to here. It does not actually go back the other way. It is simple. It is a simple fix.

The minister should honour what the people of Scarborough and York regions want done. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. Having rules in place that would allow 80 valuable heritage buildings to burn down instead of being protected may be his approach, but it is not ours. He may want to wipe out 75 farms that have been in operation on the site for some two centuries and represent an important part of the cultural heritage. That may be what he wants, but it is not what we want to see happen.

We want to see an urban national park that reflects the history, environment, and culture of that area. That is what we are looking to do. We want it to be as large as it can be. We want everyone to participate fully. We are going to protect all those assets. We are going to protect those heritage buildings, and there are over 80 of them. We want to see that they enjoy some protection. We also want to ensure that there is funding to make it understandable and interpretable. That is what the bill would do. The member had a decade in government to make something happen. They did not get a thing done.

We are getting it done.

(1200) Mr. Dan Harris : Mr. Speaker, there the House leader goes again with the campaign of fear that somehow everybody else wants to get rid of farmers. We do not have to pick between the environment and farmers. We can bring them both together. We can protect the farms and the environment at the same time. This is not about picking or choosing. The minister in charge of this still will not get up to speak to this bill and the House leader never answered my first question.

I asked how much communication has happened between the minister's office and the Ontario government since that September 2 letter when the province announced it would not support the park bill in its current form. It is important for us as New Democrats to not just simply be in opposition, but also to make substantive propositions. We will propose a new bill that will fix all the crazy things that the Conservative government will do with this bill, which has managed to lose two-thirds of support for the bill.

When will the minister answer the question with regard to how much communication has happened between the minister and the provincial government to see if they have tried to solve this problem? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, communication and discussion has been going on for decades. It has been going on throughout the time— Mr. Dan Harris : Since September 2, how much? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, if the Province of Ontario decided on September 2 that it wanted to back out of its memorandum of agreement after years of supporting the establishment of this park, after us following the terms and direction that it set out, after providing a lot more protection, then it is the Province of Ontario that has to account for its change in position and for deciding to do that. We have been clear that this is an important objective. An urban national park in the Rouge is critical. It has to happen. We want to deliver on it. We want to deliver on the environmental protection that would go with it.

We will not allow that to be held up by political games. We have put in place a proposal that would balance all interests, that would protect agricultural interests that have been there for centuries, that would protect heritage assets, that would protect the natural environment. People will finally, for once, be able to use and enjoy this first urban national park. We want to put it in place, to make it happen, with the support necessary to make it happen. Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the creation of the Rouge national park shows our government's strong commitment to conserve Canada's natural spaces and connect Canadians to nature as highlighted in our government's national conservation plan. Could the member tell me how Bill C-40 would support our hard-working farmers? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, some would prefer to see a hard line ecological position in place that would prohibit and prevent any activities, including agriculture. That is why in the end we will never be able to accommodate every group.

There are different interests at stake and we want those interests balanced. We recognize that agriculture is a heritage activity, for 200 years plus, worthy of recognition in the park. That activity would continue to exist. The park would be exempt from those prohibited activities. That is the sensible thing to do. This park is not in a pristine natural environment. It is an urban national park. The pristine parks should be protected, but those other elements in our culture and history that we look to protect should also be there.

They will be there and they will be protected in a way that will allow their use and enjoyment, and prevent their development for urban purposes forever. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, we do not have to pick between farmers or environmentalists. I asked almost every witness who appeared before committee if it was possible to work together. Farmers said that they were already environmentally responsible, that they were environmental activists. Environmentalists said they wanted sustainable farming to continue in the area.

My question for the minister is about something he repeated a few times, and that is ensuring people will enjoy the park and understand its cultural and historical heritage. People already enjoy the park. People are using it and learning about it. I want to specifically ask him about the history of the park. There is a sacred burial ground and sacred village of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat and Seneca First Nations peoples within the park right now. We put forward an amendment at committee to create an aboriginal interpretive learning centre on the park grounds.

The idea was put forward by aboriginal first nations leaders and elders. Why did the Conservatives vote against it? Why has the minister responsible for this park still not yet spoken to the bill? Why does he keep saying that he wants to help the people learn and enjoy the cultural and historic importance of this park and communities when that is really not true?

(1205) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are actually four discovery hubs, which do not exist now, that are to be established with the creation of this park, funded by the federal government. She and here party are opposing that right now. One of those discovery hubs will be near Bead Hill National Historic Site. It will introduce visitors to Rouge Valley's aboriginal history and will deal with aboriginal themes, with a special emphasis on engaging youth. This is one of four of those hubs that will be presented. She is not right when she says it is not there. It is there.

It is one of the proposals, one of the things that will happen if this passes. However, she is resisting this passing, for some reason, and then standing here, saying that we need it. This is the difficult thing. We get an opposition that claims it supports something, but then, for political reasons, it does everything it can to try to keep it from happening. Hon. John McKay : Mr. Speaker, the minister has a talent for revisionist history. For the last 30 years, all governments have worked to create this park.

Whether they have been Conservative or Liberal governments at Queen's Park, or Liberal or Conservative governments in Ottawa, all governments have worked on the land assembly. Pauline Browes is a legitimate person who has been properly recognized as a real contributor to this, as have Derek Lee and Lois Jane. Frankly, that covers the entire political spectrum. All of these people, up until six months ago, wanted this to happen, yet the government has a unique talent to take consensus, destroy it, stomp on it and do it for the most obscure reasons possible. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, did the hon. member's Liberal government get this done? Did it make it happen? Did it get the park established? No. Is the Ontario Liberal government now establishing the support of the park? No. It is very simple. We are moving forward. We are getting the park established. It will be an asset for the people of Durham, York region, Toronto, Scarborough and, in particular, for generations to come. In particular, we talk about levels of protection, for example. It enjoys protection right now from the Ontario government, under the Greenbelt plan. It needs to merely amend the plan, change a line on a map.

It does not even involve passing a law, and that protection will be all gone. Under this bill, that protection would be there in perpetuity for the benefit of the people of Canada. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Call in the members.

(1245) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 301) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calkins Cannan Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Rajotte Reid Richards Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 136 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brison Byrne Casey Cash Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Freeman Fry Garneau Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer Julian Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Ravignat Raynault Regan Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 106 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act Bill S-5. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5,

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada) , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

(1250) Hon. Peter Van Loan (for the Minister of the Environment) Motion for concurrence moved that Bill S-5,

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada) be concurred in at report stage. (Motion agreed to)

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act The House resumed from December 1 consideration of the motion that Bill S-6,

An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-6. Second reading Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Bill S-6,

an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. I think the member from western Arctic has clearly outlined the NDP position on the bill, and of course, we are opposing it. I will focus my speaking time on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act aspect of the bill, because that is very controversial. To give a bit of background, in May 2003, Canada enacted the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, in accordance with the provisions of

chapter 12 of the Yukon first nations' comprehensive land claim agreements. Yukon first nations agreed to accept less than 9% of their historic land. They accepted this small land settlement partly in exchange for the establishment of a permanent assessment process that would manage all projects in their traditional territories in accordance with the objectives stated in

chapter 12. That process is defined in YESAA, which was developed collaboratively by Canada, Yukon, and first nations. A number of concerns have been raised by Yukon first nations with regard to this piece of legislation. Following are the primary concerns. The Council of Yukon First Nations and Yukon first nations are concerned that the changes proposed in Bill S-6 would be contrary to the intent of the land claims agreements, would undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process, and would reduce the effectiveness of environmental and socioeconomic assessments.

First nations' main concerns relate to four amendments that were never raised by Canada during the five-year review. Number one is policy direction to the board. Clause 34 of Bill S-6 would provide an amendment that would give Canada the power to give binding policy direction to the YESAA board. Canada could choose to delegate this power to the Yukon government. Providing Canada with the authority to issue policy direction would undermine the independence of the board and designated offices. Independence is a fundamental element of the YESAA.

During the development of the YESAA, Yukon first nations, CYFN, Canada, and Yukon, discussed this at length. The following analysis is from a pamphlet called Changes to YESAA Threaten Our Land, Our Economy, Our Yukon. How Bill S-6 affects Yukon . It is a background fact sheet. Providing a single party with the authority to direct the Board is contrary to the spirit and intent of the YESAA and the provisions of the Final Agreements. The second piece that is controversial in this bill is the delegation of federal powers to the Yukon government.

Providing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to delegate powers to the territorial minister without the consent of first nations would create a bilateral process that would exclude first nations from discussions about the balance of power. I will come back to this particular point. The third sticking point is exemptions for renewals and amendments. This is a particular concern. It is addressed in clause 14 of Bill S-6 .

Again, I will quote from the background fact sheet: This amendment allows governments to approve the renewal or amendment of permits and licences for projects without any YESAA assessment. Renewals or amendments could have serious impacts on the environment, regional economies and local communities. This amendment will make project assessments challenging. Impacts would need to be identified for the entire project life because renewals would likely not have to go through an assessment. For some projects, effects cannot be foreseen at the time of the initial review.

This may result in negative impacts to the environment, our economy and communities. Under the amendment, governments can avoid assessment for renewals and amendments if they decide that the project has not changed significantly. The proposed amendments do not provide a definition for significant change, but rely on the opinion of the regulators. This will create uncertainty, and the perception of political interference, resulting in conflict and could possibly end up before the courts. The fourth and final concern and objection is on the timelines for the YESAA assessments.

The proposed beginning-to-end timelines would affect the thoroughness of environmental and socio-economic assessments and opportunities for first nations' input on major projects. Of course, we know that in many cases, first nations do not have the resources to drop everything and immediately respond to a project when an assessment is required.

(1255) It is very concerning and has the appearance of trying to ram through assessments without first nations having adequate time and resources to review them. What we have heard consistently from the government is that there was consultation and that it was adequate. I want to start with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and reference two articles, because it is important to set a context with regard to consultation.

Article 18 says: Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19 states: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. I want to remind the House that the government signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and made a commitment to take some next steps to implement it, but so far it has failed to do anything meaningful or concrete to uphold its international obligations.

I want to address one of the myths with regard to consultation. A paper entitled “Changes to YESAA Threaten our Environment, our Economy, our Yukon” specifically addresses the issue of consultation. This is the myth: There have been thousands of hours of consultation with First Nations on changes to YESAA over the past 7 years. Here is the reality: The Parties discussed the YESAA process for many hours between 2008 and 2011, as part of the YESAA Five-Year Review. It was a review required under the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA).

The Parties to the UFA, the Council of Yukon First Nations..., Canada and Yukon agreed to work together to improve the YESAA process through shared decision making and by consensus, when possible. The amendments to YESAA under Bill S-6 that are of concern were never discussed and were never raised by Canada during the Five-Year Review. The amendments of concern include: giving binding policy direction to the Board; handing over powers to Yukon; imposing maximum timelines for assessments; and not requiring assessments when a project is renewing or being amended.

These new amendments were introduced with little opportunity to ensure adequate consultation and accommodation. I have outlined those amendments before. The paper continues: On February 26, 2014, Canada arrived at a meeting and provided paper copies of these amendments and refused to provide electronic versions to the First Nations that were on the phone for the meeting. This stopped them from being able to participate in a meaningful way. Yukon First Nations had less than 2 months to review and respond to the changes proposed by Canada. That is not enough time to review important changes to the YESAA law.

Consultation means providing the necessary information to the Parties. Canada didn’t do that step. Canada failed to meet the test of its Treaty and common law duty to consult and accommodate. I have heard the government say that it consulted but that the Yukon first nations did not agree with it, so it was going to go ahead with the amendments, even though there was grave disagreement. We have heard the Conservative government talk in the House a number of times about an agenda around reconciliation. If it has an agenda around reconciliation, does that not mean respect for its partners?

It signed an umbrella agreement with the Council of Yukon First Nations. I would argue that there is a spirit and intent around these agreements that is about a respectful relationship, a willingness to move toward reconciliation, and an unwillingness to unilaterally impose a federal government's will on first nations. It is fine for the government to say that it has consulted, but if it does not actually do anything about the disagreement to try to resolve it, that is hardly consultation. Representatives of the Council of Yukon First Nations were in Ottawa because of their grave concerns.

They we here at the invitation of the minister and had a meeting with him. CBC's headline was, “Ottawa trip on Bill S-6 ends in insult to Yukon First Nations”. In that meeting, Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation Chief Eric Fairclough said: The minister shut us down by telling us we were “not real governments”, and therefore he does not need to make us active participants in changing legislation that arises from our treaties. The

article went on to state: Fairclough says that's an insult that "flies in the face of recent court decisions that have affirmed the duty to consult First Nations."

(1300) At the aboriginal affairs committee yesterday, I asked the minister whether or not he had said that. He put it into context, and I will read his response into the record. He stated that “The point I made is under the umbrella agreement, government is defined as being the Government of Canada or the Government of Yukon, so my point was that this delegation is contemplated under the umbrella agreement and it does not define government as being first nations. Their argument is that, under the umbrella agreement, they should be considered governments, and unfortunately, that was not the deal concluded.

The umbrella agreement is clear that “government” is defined either as Government of Canada or Government of Yukon. I said that for the purposes of the umbrella agreement, they were not considered and defined as government. That does not mean they are not governments. They are governments but not under the umbrella agreement...”. We have a government that talks about how it supports all government agreements with first nations.

I am not a lawyer, but I know there are many fine lawyers in the House who will tell us that we cannot outline every single possible detail in any agreement, and that what a lot of it comes down to is the spirit and intent. From many presentations and court cases, I can tell members that the rights of first nations have been reaffirmed. I want to refer to a document from January 2007. It is not a legal document but rather an

interpretation. It is entitled, “Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments”. This was put out by the Assembly of First Nations. Under “3.3 Core Functions of First Nation Governments”, it states: The United Nations Development Programme views “capable government” as a precondition to development. Governments are the primary vehicles for promoting social, cultural , and economic development within a society. A capable government must be the one that makes decisions affecting its citizens. A government works best when it is close to those it governs.

It goes on to say: Communities need to be able to govern themselves with real authorities and jurisdiction. We have governed ourselves effectively in the past and continue to do so despite external impositions like the Indian Act....All regions agreed that First Nation governments have the inherent responsibility and jurisdictions to legislate on those areas that affect their communities. Surely the changes that are proposed in Bill S-6 would fundamentally affect economic development, the environment that Yukon first nations live in, and their way of life.

If that does not meet the test of what should be considered a government-to-government relationship, I do not know what does. It is not just first nations who are opposing this legislation. I have a number of letters here, which I unfortunately will run out of time reading into the record, but I will quote a few to give members a sense of their flavour.

The Tourism Industry Association of Yukon wrote to the member of Parliament for Yukon stating the following: On behalf of the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon, I am writing to express our support for the Council of Yukon First Nations' opposition to particular amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...by the Government of Canada, through Bill S-6. We believe that these changes will have a negative impact on the tourism industry, and for Yukoners overall.

In conclusion, the TIA states: TIA Yukon asserts that taking land use planning decisions away from the Territory will ultimately give tourism operators in the Yukon less of a say over land use issues where resource extraction interests conflict with the interests of tourism businesses.

The Casino Mining Corporation wrote to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development stating this: On behalf of Casino Mining Corporation...I am putting forward our company's concerns regarding the fragility of intergovernmental relations in the Yukon surrounding Bill S-6 and the negative impact this is having on the territory's mineral industry.

It is imperative for Casino that the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...has the broad support of all governments in order to ensure the confidence of both project proponents and Yukon residents in the YESAA process and to facilitate investment in the territory.... Casino believes that if the YESAA has the full support of all levels of government, it will provide greater certainty for the mineral industry. To this end, we encourage Canada, Yukon, and Yukon First Nation governments to engage, work collaboratively and find a solution to address the outstanding issues within Bill S-6 .

In a letter to the member for Yukon , the Wildlife Conservation Society states: I am writing on behalf of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada...to express opposition to Bill S-6 , recently introduced through the Senate of Canada by the federal government. I have witnessed the implementation of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act...since its inception in 2005, and have been generally impressed by the record of its implementation body.... That is the YESA Board.

(1305) It continues: Bill S-6 proposes various amendments to the YESAA that will undermine the independence and integrity of the environmental impact assessment process currently administered by YESAB. Therefore the social licence for project approvals that YESAB has gained runs a strong risk of being compromised. Bill S-6 has substantial shortcomings, both in the process by which it has been drafted, and in its content. The process for developing these amendments and compiling them in draft legislation has been flawed.

The original YESAA derives from the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) under which Aboriginal claims for rights and title have been settled in Yukon. A review of YESAA was mandated to occur after 5 years of implementation, and that review began in 2008. The subsequent process has been long and ultimately produced Bill S-6. The major problems with the process have been: (

i) a number of issues raised by First Nations up to June 2011 were ignored or overlooked without explanation in the Interim Draft Final Report of the review process released by the federal government (March 2012) and in the Final Review Report (October 2012); (ii) some of the stages of the review process were held in camera so there is a lack of transparency and accountability to all the negotiating parties and to the public; (iii) certain stakeholders, notably the non-renewable resource extraction industries, participated in the review process in camera; (iv) Bill S-6 has been introduced by your government without the endorsement of Yukon First Nations which makes it contrary to the spirit and intent of the UFA.

In sum, the consultation process has lacked transparency, appears biased, and has not addressed First Nations' concerns which are of equal validity to those of Canada or Yukon in a government-to-government agreement such as the UFA. There are also reasons for concern about the content of Bill S-6, and I highlight three. First, the Bill provides the option for the federal government (Canada), or by delegation the Yukon Territorial government, to impose policy direction on the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Board (YESAB).

This undermines a stated purpose of YESAA (5, 2(a)) which is to produce a "neutrally-conducted assessment process" at arm's length from government. The existing YESAA already allows the Yukon Territorial government, through the Executive Council Office, the power to accept or reject YESAB recommendations. There is no need, in practical or moral terms, to further remove power and influence from YESAB and place it unilaterally in the hands of one or other government. Doing so goes against the spirit and intent of the UFA and the First Nations' final agreements.

Second, Bill S-6 imposes specific timelines on YESAB for project review. As a result, complex projects will receive relatively cursory review because of a rushed process. It is unclear why this would be needed other than perhaps that the YESAB review process in operation before Bill S-6 has come under criticism from the mining industry when YESAB requests additional information during the process.

Speaking from the perspective of a biologist who is aware of ecological impacts brought about by mining operations, this is not a reflection of a faulty review process, but a reflection of inadequate preparation by industry and its consultants. In other words, there is a strong argument to be made that YESAB's reviews have been working well by uncovering poor planning and preparation by project proponents. Finally, as I mentioned, they also raise the following concern: Bill S-6 removes the need for any YESAB review of project amendments or renewals, unless there are "significant changes”.

A number of bodies have pointed out the very serious concern that this piece of legislation does not define what significant changes are. There are other organizations, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and the Yukon

chapter of CPAWS, who have also raised very serious objections with regard to the independence and impartiality of the development assessment process. Generally, they are calling on the government to pull this bill and to work with Yukon first nations to make sure that the bill reflects both the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement, and the spirit and intent of government-to-government relationships, which would include Yukon first nations. Given the number of objections that have been raised by Yukoners, including industry and non-governmental organizations, I would urge this government to take a step back and look at the four key areas where there are very serious objections.

(1310) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite often about the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement. What we have done with the bill is actually respect the text of it.

She spoke about a perceived insult that was reported in the news, and which she did bring up yesterday at committee, where the minister simply pointed to page 4 of the umbrella agreement, which says the following in the definition section: “Government” means Canada or the Yukon, or both, depending upon which government or governments have responsibility, from time to time, for the matter in question. This is not something we have made up. This is not something that has been pulled out of thin air. This is certainly not an insult.

This is a definition in the Umbrella Final Agreement, Council for Yukon Indians, which this legislation certainly respects, and it certainly allows for the delegation of federal powers. It allows for policy direction. It allows for all four amendments that have supposedly invoked the ire of the CYI. I wonder if the member could speak specifically to what sections of the Umbrella Final Agreement have been violated by Bill S-6 , not the spirit and intent, but the text itself, because that is what we deal with here as lawmakers.

We respect final agreements and the law, and I would like her to point out where it has been violated. Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I did address that in my speech and acknowledge that the minister had quoted that. He did not quote a specific section, but he indicated that the Umbrella Final Agreement talked about the Government of Canada and Yukon. I do not believe we can just brush away the spirit and intent. If we are to move toward reconciliation in this country, then first nations must be recognized as an order of government.

When we are putting forward legislation that would have a profound impact on first nations' ability to manage their territories, then we need to have them at the table and not just brush them aside, which the government is attempting to do.

The parliamentary secretary can say that it is not about spirit and intent but about what is written right here, but the Conservatives are the ones who signed on to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges that first nations have a right to make decisions about matters, legislative decisions and other matters, that directly affect their ability to govern their communities. I would argue that Bill S-6 directly affects their ability to govern their communities. [ Translation ] Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this bill stinks of paternalism.

I have noticed that many of the Conservatives' first nations bills have had the same stink, especially when they have to do with first nations women. Has my colleague noticed this as well? [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, for the last many years, from 2006 actually, we have continually seen legislation come forward that does not reflect, in many of our views, at least on the New Democrat side of the House, the duty to consult. The government loves to trot out the fact that it has had eight meetings talking to people.

What it fails to address is the fact that consultation actually should be a circular process. We provide information, we provide resources, we sit down with people, we hear what they have to say, and then we actually include them in working toward a solution where there were differences. It is the part where we include people toward working toward solutions where there are differences that the government consistently fails, whether it is on matrimonial real property, water, or education.

Whatever legislation has come before the House to which first nations have objected, the government has failed to work to resolve those objections. I would agree with the member for Hochelaga that it is a very paternalistic approach to working with first nations.

(1315) Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, on the issue of consultation, I think the member is correct. She has pointed out the number of meetings that we held and the fact that over $98,000 was provided to the first nations in question to debate these very specific four points that were not included in the five-year review. What would the member suggest when there really are two positions that are not going to change and over which there is disagreement? Does the duty to consult fail when the government does not accommodate differences every time?

There certainly has to be a test where there is consultation, but it does not always require accommodation. What does the hon. member think should be done when there are entrenched positions that are mutually opposed? Does she simply suggest that the government knuckle under every time, or how do we resolve that when the positions are entrenched? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I used the words “knuckle under”. What I did say was that, in a respectful relationship, one tries to work toward a solution.

In my speech, I talked about the parts that are the sticking points that are not part of that five-year review process. From the Yukon first nations' perspective, some of their members were not even provided with copies of the documents that were under review at a meeting back in February 2014. If we are going to have a complete consultation process, we have to allow enough time and provide people with the documentation to allow them to review it. [ Translation ] Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I remind the parliamentary secretary that in the Haida case, which was 10 years ago now, the Supreme Court indicated that the broad spectrum of consultation includes the full consent of the first nations on important issues. I think that the environment is most definitely an important issue to the first nations. I simply want to remind the parliamentary secretary of that. I have a very simple question for my colleague. I have noticed a common thread in all of the government's actions since it got a majority in 2011.

It has been weakening all of the environmental assessment processes to make it easier to develop natural resources. That is unfair to many people—the first nations, of course, but also people who live in the north. They need to be involved in the decisions that affect them, especially when it comes to the environment. My colleague mentioned a number of important stakeholders in this process, such as the tourism association and mining companies.

Are there any others she could mention to show that the first nations are not the only ones who are upset here, but that there are many people living in the north who care about the environment and the economy? [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I want to touch for one moment on the issue around accommodation. The member cited the Haida case from a number of years ago. However, we also had a recent court decision, the Tsilhqot'in decision, which talked about not only consultation but consent. Consent is missing in Bill S-6 . There is no consent to the changes that would be made.

With regard to the environment, there are mining companies that have raised objections, environmental organizations, and tourism organizations. It sounds to me as if there are a number of Yukoners who are really concerned about protecting the wonderful, amazing environment up in Yukon. People want economic development, but they want it done responsibly and sustainably. What the bill would do is create more uncertainty. It would not protect the environment and it would create uncertainty for some of these projects.

First nations have already indicated that, if the government is not willing to sit down with them and talk about accommodation and consent, this will end up in court, and that would not provide certainty in terms of development of a variety of projects.

(1320) Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill S-6, a bill from the Senate,

an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. I oppose this legislation. I think it is deeply flawed. I would love to hear from the member for Yukon in the House. I do not see him anywhere. Mr. Mark Strahl : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless the member thinks we should amend the rules so the member for Yukon can give two speeches at the same stage, perhaps he should stick to order and not point out the presence or absence of a member.

Perhaps he could check back in Hansard , where he can read the speech of the member for Yukon. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Members may know that, in fact, the Standing Orders do indicate that members should avoid any reference to the presence or absence of members in the House. That is an area of speech we tend to stay away from. In this case, the hon. parliamentary secretary makes a valid point. Therefore, I would encourage the hon. member to perhaps rephrase that comment and perhaps avoid it in future. Mr. Philip Toone : Mr.

Speaker, I will take your good counsel on this matter. To further debate on this bill, it is very important that the government understand that environmental protection is a fundamental obligation of this House. We need to ensure that our environment is going to be there for future generations. We all want to benefit from its wealth, from the bounty it brings us, but we need to do it in full consultation and full agreement with the people who live on those lands. The current government has had extreme difficulty in being able to bring forward legislation that brings this consultation process to the fore.

We need to recall previous bills that this side of the House certainly had a lot of difficulty with, such as Bill C-38 , which gutted environmental protections in this country. We see with this bill that we are again going in the same direction. Environmental protection is an obligation; it is a duty on our part. We want to ensure that resources remain. We want to ensure that people can continue to benefit from the wealth that this land brings us. It is not simply a theoretical question.

In my riding, when we speak to environmental protection, we are talking about the fundamental industries that make my riding economically viable: the forestry industry, the fishing industry, the mining industry. We need those environmental protections so that future generations can exploit those resources and, unfortunately, Bill C-38 scrapped those. With Bill S-6 , we have a situation where those who live in Yukon have challenged this legislation insofar as they have not been consulted adequately. In fact, there have been threats of legal action against this bill.

I sometimes wonder if the current government is not simply here to ensure that lawyers have as much work as possible challenging its bills before the courts. Let us remember that the Supreme Court, over and over again, has identified that the duty to consult is not a duty to be trifled with. My colleague recently mentioned that the courts, in June of this year, came up with even stronger language. The court has made it clear that the government not only has a duty to consult but has a duty to accommodate. The duty increases with the responsibility and the rights of first nations on their land.

In the case of this bill, we have a number of first nations representatives who have told us precisely why they do not agree with this bill. A few representatives of first nations have been very clear. I will start with Mary Jane Jim, councillor from the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. She has already testified and has said very clearly that in her opinion there are concerns regarding Bill S-6 . They are subject to the matters raised during the five-year review.

It is her view that Yukon environmental assessments have been operating effectively and efficiently since 2003, but that Bill S-6 would amend this process so that the proposed Bill S-6 would breach the crown's duty to consult and accommodate with respect to the proposed changes to YESAA. Mary Jane Jim goes on to point out that: The CYFN and Yukon First Nations assert that the federal government would breach its constitutional duty to uphold the honour of the Crown when it proceeded unilaterally with amendments to the YESAA.

These are matters that were not discussed or raised during the five-year review or, in the case of the amendment that would create exemptions for project renewals and changes, contradict agreements reached during the five-year review. This is the opinion of one person, a representative of first nations. I am going to bring more testimony that was brought to the fore already, to the other House. Let us be clear. The representatives of first nations are dissatisfied with this bill. This bill does not go far enough in consulting first nations, nor does it go far enough in protecting the environment.

It was done in a secretive way. There are a number of organizations that feel that the five-year review process was not respected and they were not allowed the input not only that they were expecting but also that we are duty-bound to supply.

(1325) The Nunavut Water Board, for instance, has a number of concerns. It has already brought forward possible amendments; one of them being the question of anticipated duration, which Mary Jane Jim, the councillor from the first nations, has already brought forward in the testimony I just cited. The question of the anticipated duration of appurtenant undertaking is a very ambiguous statement. The question from the board's perspective is that there is an absence of regulatory definition of what is an anticipated duration, what it means, and it seems to create confusion regarding enforcement.

What is an anticipated duration of any project? One would have a hard time defining that from the get-go. The difficulty is that, if there had been an adequate process of consultation, maybe these issues would have been addressed in the first place.

The problem, again, with the current government is that it is in a terrible hurry to adopt legislation, it does not take the time to consult, and it comes up with legislation that is often flawed, forcing many organizations to bring legislation to tribunals and, ultimately, possibly even the Supreme Court—a very costly, time-consuming undertaking—when in fact it would have been simpler and much more effective if the consultation had been done properly in the first place.

I would like to comment on an issue that the member for Hochelaga also brought forward, that there seems to be a strong sense, a strong flavour of paternalism in the way we deal with first nations, in the way we deal with our territories. When we do not have adequate consultation, the solutions are made in Ottawa and imposed upon people in the north. Why would we not take the time to bring their concerns forward and have them properly addressed and accommodated for? The consultation process is not simply a theory where we put up a website and wait for comments to come in.

There is an obligation to bring those concerns forward, to address them, and to accommodate them to the extent we are legally obligated, and more. The obligation here is to respect first nations' rights and respect our environment in the long term. Unfortunately, we seem to making legislation that brings the possibility of exploiting our natural resources at the first possible occasion and in the quickest way to make a buck. However, that is not a long-term view. That is a view that can only bring us forward for a few months, for a few years, but in the long run, we all end up losers in that process.

We should really be looking at why we put in the YESAA in the first place. The Yukon