14633 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 225 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, June 5, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 225 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 225 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 225 (Version officielle) 147 225 05 06 2015 2015/06/05 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 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1005) [ English ] Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) moved 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 third time and passed. Bill S-6. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, in 2007, this government launched a comprehensive northern strategy focused on sovereignty, the environment, the economy, and governance. Under the leadership of this Prime Minister , for the past nine years we have been providing northerners with the tools they need to take advantage of the vast natural resources at their disposal in an environmentally sustainable manner.

By doing so, we are creating jobs and economic opportunities for northerners, ensuring the long-term prosperity of the north for generations to come.

Members can take great satisfaction from our progress in advancing the northern strategy in recent years thanks to extensive federal infrastructure investments, whether it be the creation of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency under the able leadership of the Minister of the Environment , the devolution of the Northwest Territories, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in the eastern Arctic, the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway, Canada's leadership on the Arctic Council, or the extension of protected land and marine areas, and the list goes on.

The bill before us today, Bill S-6 , is the next example of how we are delivering on our northern strategy. This bill will complete the modernization of regulatory regimes in the north by bringing Yukon and Nunavut's regulatory regimes up to speed and on par with other Canadian jurisdictions. [ Translation ] This legislative work was started in 2013 with the Northern Jobs and Growth Act and completed in the Northwest Territories last year with the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Now it is time to finish what we have started.

The proposed amendments to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act are designed to make the regulatory systems in Yukon and Nunavut more efficient and effective, while ensuring sound environmental stewardship. This is what Yukon Premier Darrell Pasloski told senators during hearings on the bill: We [the Yukon] are now in a position where we are not as competitive with other jurisdictions. Quite frankly, we would like to get back on an equal footing with the other jurisdictions in this country. Bill S-6 would do just that.

It would make the two territories' regulatory regimes consistent with others across the north and in the rest of Canada. This would ensure Yukon and Nunavut remain attractive places to live, work and invest for generations to come. (1010) [ English ] Let me briefly highlight the many advantages of Bill S-6 for each territory. I will begin by summarizing some facts about updating YESAA. It is important to underline that the amendments were informed by extensive discussions and consultations in Yukon over a period of seven years.

These included the five-year review of YESAA as well as more recent engagement on this legislation. Bill S-6 is consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement and the individual first nations final agreements signed by the federal and territorial governments and Yukon first nations. Decision-making powers over natural resources that currently rest with the territorial government or the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board would not change. Neither the federal government nor the territorial government would have the authority to influence, direct, or interfere with an assessment process.

It is especially important that aboriginal input and participation would remain central to the YESAA process. It is important to point out that the Senate Standing Committee Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources completed its review of the legislation last fall. At the end of its review, it endorsed the bill unanimously. I submit that it correctly recognized that the passage of this bill would help foster economic development in the region and would create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity in an increasingly global marketplace. These are the facts.

Allow me to take a moment to clarify, for the record, a few of the concerns that have been raised with regard to this bill, because as with every bill that comes through this place, there is very rarely unanimity. Bill S-6 would provide the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with the authority to give binding policy direction to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board. The minister could also delegate his authority to the Government of Yukon in certain situations, if the need arose.

Including the power to delegate authorities to the territorial government is, I submit, consistent with the northern strategy and its aim of devolving and improving northern governance. It does not conflict with land claim agreements nor does it disrupt the tripartite spirit of the environmental assessment process. Further, and I have made this very clear, the government has no intention of exercising its authority to delegate any powers to the territorial government in the near term.

Of course, if any such delegation were contemplated in the future, it would be consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement and would also be in the best interests of Yukoners, including Yukon first nations. When it comes to the issue of policy direction, there has been a lot of fearmongering about what types of policy direction the minister could issue. Allow to me alleviate these concerns.

Not only does this power already exist in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, but in each and every case when this power was exercised, which was four times, it was to protect the interests of first nations and to ensure that all the parties involved, namely the board, had a common understanding, with the government, of agreements the government had subsequently undertaken. That is important to point out. Policy direction could only be given within the framework of existing legislation and land claims agreements and after consultation with the board.

This amendment would apply to matters such as board conduct, the use of new technology, and satisfying roles and responsibilities regarding aboriginal consultation.

(1015) Contrary to the myths that have been spread around, it absolutely does not affect the independence of the board or the board's decision-making abilities with respect to a project under consideration or a completed assessment. The board maintains the jurisdiction, as set out in the agreement, of an independent arm's-length body responsible for making recommendations to decision-making bodies based on their socioeconomic and environmental assessment.

Finally, and I am not sure if my colleagues are aware of it, this authority also exists and is consistent with territorial legislation that allows a Yukon minister to issue policy direction to boards, which has been done on one occasion. [ Translation ] While the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board has a clear record of completing reviews in a timely manner, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act does not set out the “beginning-to-end” time limits for project reviews that exist in every other jurisdiction in Canada. Bill S-6 fixes that problem.

The time limits in Bill S-6 are intended to put Yukon on a level playing field with the rest of Canada and the world, minimize investor uncertainty and make project planning more predictable, while allowing for necessary extensions that could arise with more complex projects. Of course, the time required by the proponent to gather information and undertake any studies necessary for the review would be excluded. We heard repeatedly from government and industry about the time and money spent on assessments for minor changes that had no substantive impact on a project or the environment.

This proposed legislation clarifies that authorization to renew or amend a project would only require a new assessment where there has been a significant change to the project. This would reduce the administrative burden on the proponent and the board and ensure predictability for established projects.

First nations would have a direct role in determining whether there has been a significant change when the project is located on settlement land and the first nation is a decision body for the project. [ English ] There has been much debate about the Yukon component of this bill, particularly with regard to the concerns I just mentioned. I think hon. members will have no choice but to agree, after hearing these remarks, that indeed the bill was developed with the best interests of Yukoners in mind, including those of Yukon first nations, and will help us to finally bring this bill into law.

I want to take a moment to recognize the tireless efforts of the member of Parliament for Yukon on this bill. If it were not for him, it would not have been possible, due to the NDP's interminable ban on committee travel, for the committee to have concluded its hearings in Yukon to hear directly from Yukoners, which was significant. I think Yukoners should be grateful for such a hard-working Conservative member of Parliament. Another aspect of this bill that has not been debated, it seems to me, is the one that concerns Nunavut.

For the record, the Government of Nunavut has called on us to take action to modernize the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

(1020) The hon. Johnny Mike, Minister of Environment in Nunavut stated: ...the Government of Nunavut believes that this bill will make a number of improvements to the regulatory regime in Nunavut....this is an important piece of legislation for the North and will contribute to the environmental protection and economic development of Nunavut. In developing this proposed legislation, the Government of Canada sought the input of the territorial government and Nunavut Tunnagavik Inc., NTI, which represents the Inuit of Nunavut.

We also engaged with the Nunavut Water Board, with industry and other federal government departments prior to preparing the Nunavut related provisions of Bill S-6 . We listened closely to the input received during consultation, which is reflected in the proposed legislation. Residents of Nunavut can look forward to an improved regulatory environment as a result of these efforts. The changes proposed would introduce beginning to end time limits on the issuance of water licences and reduce the duplication and uncertainty of unnecessary reviews.

They would also give the Nunavut Water Board the ability, at its discretion, to issue water licences for the anticipated duration of a project. Life of project water licences would extend the maximum duration of a licence from 25 years to the anticipated life of the project. This would enable companies to undertake long-term planning and implement the principle of one project, one assessment. Bill S-6 also addresses the long-standing disincentive to investment in Nunavut, security over bonding.

Over bonding occurs when a company is required to provide more security than would be required to remediate a project at its completion because both regional Inuit associations and the Nunavut Water Board have set security amounts. With Bill S-6, the federal minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development would be given legislative authority to enter into agreements relating to security with Inuit landowners and the project applicant. The Nunavut Water Board would still be responsible for setting the amount of security, but the board would be required to consider any arrangement reached.

Bill S-6 would also implement stronger enforcement provisions to increase environmental stewardship, as well as align the act with other federal environmental statutes. The proposed legislation would increase fines for violations and allow for the creation of administrative monetary penalties to encourage compliance with regulatory requirements and remove the financial benefit of rule breaking. There is broad support for the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act throughout Nunavut.

Northerners recognize that consultation has been robust and that the proposed amendments would foster investor confidence, economic opportunities and growth while promoting sound environmental stewardship in the eastern Arctic. For example, while giving testimony at the Senate committee, the witness from the Nunavut Water Board said: ...we were very much part of the working group and very much contributed to that working group all throughout and indeed are quite satisfied how well some of the issues we raised were heard.

As well, the President of NTI, Cathy Towtongie, wrote to me, saying, NTI has no objections to the modest changes proposed to the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

(1025) My colleague, the Minister of the Environment , who represents Nunavut, has further reinforced the desire of her constituents to see Bill S-6 passed. As she has observed, the proposed legislation plays a crucial role in preparing for devolution to be successful in Nunavut. It would ensure the water management regime that is eventually transferred from the federal government to the Government of Nunavut would encourage investment and allow the territory to fully benefit from increased resource development.

Of course, our government remains committed to moving forward with the implementation of the legislative changes in a collaborative manner, respecting the spirit and intent of the land claims agreement in both territories. For all of these reasons, I urge all-party support for this most worthy proposed legislation. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the minister today about the debate on Bill S-6 that would affect the people of Yukon so dramatically.

I think it first should be noted, this is the first and only day of debate on third reading for Bill S-6 , as the government has decided to, once again in an unprecedented way, use time allocation to shut down debate on legislation in this place. The minister talked about “broad support” for the bill, and it respecting the spirit and intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement in land claims in Yukon. One of the great accomplishments of Canada was the creation of the Yukon Environmental and Social Assessment Board, YESA.

That was a three-legged stool with the equal participation by statute after the Umbrella Final Agreement, of first nations, Yukon government and federal government. I had occasion to work. I was the legal adviser to the Yukon government during the self-government agreement preceding YESA. With this bill, people of Yukon are saying that this is tilting that three-legged stool in an unbalanced way to the federal government, and Council of Yukon First Nations are talking about lawsuits in order to stop this misguided legislation.

My question to the minister is, how does he say that there is this “broad support” for the legislation when people are talking about lawsuits to stop it and to change the balance that had been created so effectively when YESA was first created? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I would like to point out the fact, which he omits to mention, that the vast majority of the amendments in Bill S-6 to the YESA process stem from the five-year review that took place. I referred in my remarks to a seven-year process that took place in order to bring Bill S-6 before this House.

When I talked of broad support, the fact of the matter is that there is indeed broad support, total support for all of those measures except four particular amendments. These four particular amendments have also been the subject of consultation with the first nations. As the record will show, all Yukoners, stakeholders, industry, government and first nations participated in the consultation process on these amendments, and the four particular amendments in question are probably most important to level the playing field I referred to.

The Yukon Territory deserves to benefit from the same rules as other territories and those provinces south of 60, and they ensure the certainty required to promote investment into the responsible natural resource development of the territory. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister is so confident about the legislation he has brought forward, and yet, as has been pointed out, again through time allocation, is limiting participation, which is somewhat typical of the entire process of the bill.

I was not able to be there at the committee stage to hear the witnesses, but I have heard from a significant number of individuals in regard to Bill S-6 . If the minister believes his legislation is so great, why then has there been so much resistance by the different stakeholders in coming on board with the member's legislation? On the one hand we have the government saying, “Here is this wonderful piece of legislation”, but the communities that it is affecting are obviously offside with the minister.

How does the minister justify bringing forward legislation when he was not able to even come close to achieving any sort of consensus6 To illustrate just how bad it is, the only way the government has been able to pass this thing through to date is through time allocation. If it was not using its majority, it would not be passing the legislation.

(1030) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the observation of the hon. member, again, is very isolated. The fact of the matter is that this bill is fully supported and asked for by the entire legislature of the Yukon. The Government of Yukon supports this bill, asked for its implementation, and what is more important is that all of the provisions in the bill are fully consistent with the letter of the Umbrella Final Agreement. This is not news to anybody in the Yukon who has read the Umbrella Final Agreement.

All of these measures were contemplated, and I cannot understand why Liberals would want to keep the Yukon on a playing field that is inferior to that of other jurisdictions in Canada so as to prevent investment in the Yukon. That is what this bill would achieve. Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned in his speech, last year the NDP acted unilaterally to impose a travel ban on committee travel. This is clearly a case of the NDP not acting in collaboration with first nations and northerners, as our government has been doing.

Thankfully, due to the strong leadership of the member of Parliament for Yukon , who strongly advocated for committee hearings to take place in Yukon, we were able to hear from Yukoners. I lived in Yukon for 28 years, consider myself a former Yukoner, and I know that Yukoners appreciate Ottawa hearing their voice. This is significant. Could the minister please take a moment to highlight for the members opposite how this government continues to work in collaboration with northerners and first nations? Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to thank the hon. member for his question.

Notwithstanding that he no longer lives there, he has a strong commitment to Yukon. The hon. member referred to the member of Parliament for Yukon , and I want to pay tribute to that Conservative member, because he rose above politics. Unfortunately, every time he brings a measure that is aimed at trying to do something positive for the benefit of people, other people, especially opposition members, try to score cheap political points. Let us forget the fundamental of what is aimed for here.

The member for Yukon , throughout all of this debate, and it has been tough at points, always rose above politics and addressed the best interests of Yukoners. If there was any doubt in anybody's mind on this side of the House that this is not in the best interests of Yukoners and also of Canada, then the bill would not be here. This is about promoting growth, creating jobs, ensuring long-term prosperity and creating opportunities for Canadians in the north, Yukoners who love to live there, but would prefer to continue improving their standard of living, which this bill would achieve.

(1035) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, having listened to the minister's comments, I want him to know that he is completely incorrect when he says that the entire legislature of Yukon supported this bill. I was up there a few weeks ago and spoke on this bill. I met with many people, and I can say that there are members of the legislative assembly in Whitehorse who are very opposed to this bill. They reflected first nations and community concerns, because people believe that this bill would undermine agreements that are already in place.

I would like to ask the minister to withdraw his comment that this bill is supported by, I think he said, the whole legislative assembly. That is simply not true. He can check the record. It is not true. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, I will admit that when the House of Commons passes something and they vote against it, that does not prevent the statement that the House approved it. The legislature approved it, and that is a fact. As to the other point the member made about some people being against it, of course they are. However, we have to look at the overall players.

There are a few objectors to a few of the provisions of the bill, but the overwhelming majority of the provisions are endorsed by first nations, by the legislature of the Yukon, and hopefully also by this House, because the Senate has already unanimously approved the bill. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this House to speak to this critical bill. I want to begin by correcting the record. The minister who just spoke characterized support from Yukon first nations in a way that is simply not the case.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, the official opposition that stands with Yukon first nations. We categorically oppose Bill S-6 , not as the minister said. We oppose it along with many Yukoners, members of the legislature, members of organizations, environmental organizations, esteemed Yukoners who were part of putting together YESAA, and members of industry. They are all expressing their opposition to this bill. I am proud that we are standing with them today to do so as well.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development travelled to the Yukon to hear testimony from those who will be affected most by Bill S-6 . We now know that Yukoners do not want this bill. We know that first nations do not want this bill. To pass it would be imposition on their right of self-determination, and in the case of Yukon first nations, it will be a breach of the final agreement. The callous disrespect that the Conservative government repeatedly shows towards treaty rights is both outrageous and, frankly, illegal. It knows that.

It knows that Bill S-6 will send them into the courts, battling against Yukon first nations. The fact is that Conservatives do not care. We know that the government is currently engaged in litigation with 95 first nations. It has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars fighting indigenous rights in court. Enough is enough. As I attended the truth and reconciliation closing events this week, I saw thousands of Canadians who are ready to repair the ongoing violence of colonialism. However, we need our government to be a partner in this great task.

Knowingly brushing off the Yukon first nations final agreement is illegal, immoral, and it will be expensive. More importantly, this week, it is also opposite to the spirit of reconciliation. It is perhaps most disappointing in this case that Yukoners of all kinds are in fervent disagreement with Bill S-6 . They want to uphold the final agreement. They see it as their agreement as well. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, known as YESAA, is a made in Yukon program, and they worked hard to achieve it.

They want to be good neighbours and good business partners with first nations and the federal government. What is clear, since hearing testimony from Yukoners, is that the territorial Yukon government does not speak on behalf of the people. This is clear, as it supports this legislation. I remember communicating with the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations, Ruth Massie, who stated: This whole process attacks the integrity of our constitutionally protected agreements and Yukon First Nations will stand by their agreements even if it means going to court, they give us no choice.

We did not sign our agreements to implement them in the courts but we will protect them. The people of the Yukon and first nations alike are baffled by the contents of Bill S-6 . The YESAA recently underwent a five-year review, through which recommendations were made. However, the four amendments that are the cause of concern appeared nowhere as recommendations in the five-year review. These four changes are contrary to the intent of the land claims agreement and undermine the neutrality of the YESAA process.

The changes are that the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will be endowed with the authority to provide policy directives to the YESAA board; that the federal minister will be given the power to delegate his federal powers to the Yukon government; that the exemptions for renewal and amendments could work to eliminate requirements for projects that could have major effects on the environment and communities; and, finally, that the condensed timelines on the YESAA assessments will limit the thoroughness of environmental assessments and limit the opportunity for first nations input.

(1040) Grand Chief Ruth Massie said this of the amendments in Bill S-6 : Yukon First nations have met with the Government of Canada, specifically [the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada] and have asked them to remove four problematic amendments proposed to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act [that was] established in

Chapter 11 of the Umbrella final agreement and each final land claim agreement of the eleven Yukon First Nations. 1. Yukon First Nations are opposed to the proposed amendments to YESAA because they undermine our Aboriginal rights, titles and interests. 2. The four proposed amendments were not discussed with the agreement signatories prior to being considered, a complete surprise to Yukon first Nations. This is a direct breach of the constitutionally protected agreements for all eleven Yukon First Nations in regards to consultation and accommodation. 3.

Canada's decision to impose the four proposed amendments will likely result in litigation with Yukon First Nations. This will affect the Yukon economy and cause [an impact on] any future resource development. Very unnecessary actions! The question, why is the current government taking actions that it knows are unlawful and will lead to litigation? Why do Conservatives consistently force first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities into costly, protracted court battles that they will ultimately lose?

The answer, I am afraid, lies in the Conservatives' willingness to put the perceived interests of extraction companies above environmental and first nations rights. As with so much other legislation we have seen in this Parliament, the Conservatives intend to obliterate the environmental assessments and protections that Canada has established. I am speaking of Bill C-45 , the omnibus bill that destroyed the navigable waters act; or Bill C-38 , which made sweeping changes to Fisheries and Oceans.

What is most interesting about Bill S-6 is that a good portion of the businesses and extractive corporations with interests in the Yukon are also opposed to it. Industry is learning faster than government that in order to have sound, productive business dealings on or affecting indigenous lands, industries must secure meaningful consent and partnerships first.

I would like to read from a letter sent by a CEO of the Casino Mining Corporation, Paul West-Sells, who wrote to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs : 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 investments in the territory. In other words, if there is no confidence that first nations will support the government's environmental assessments, there can be no confidence in the investments that businesses want to make there. Bill S-6 could have disastrous implications on the Yukon economy.

I have been told that Yukon is proud that YESAA is homegrown and serves Yukoners and first nations. It is their tripartite agreement that created it. The current government is focused on destroying the protections over so many local and beloved waters and ecosystems. Yukoners know that YESAA is unique, and that it stands to protect the biosphere and their relationships with the indigenous communities they live with. One of the repeated concerns that has been raised by Yukoners is that their voices have not been heard throughout this process.

I quoted Grand Chief Ruth Massie, and I also want to read into the record the voices of other Yukoners who have been fighting Bill S-6 . Mary Jane Jim, councillor of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, provided testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. She said: 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.

(1045) A great friend, Yukon NDP leader Liz Hanson, said in October 2014: Eleven years ago, devolution gave the Yukon government province-like powers for land and resource management. This was an important step in Yukon’s history and crucial in Yukon’s ability to determine our own future, a future grounded in respectful relationships among Yukon First Nation governments and the Yukon government. With these proposed amendments to what is a made-in-Yukon environmental assessment process, YESAA, it’s no longer ours.

The NDP leader Liz Hansen also said: What we need, what is sorely missing, is a willingness to engage in an open and honest manner. We need a relationship built on dialogue and respect, rather than on lawsuits and secret negotiations. A Yukon news editorial in June 2014, entitled “Environmental assessment reform should be done in the open”, wrote: A long list of people deserve raspberries for this needlessly shady behaviour. At the top of the naughty list are Senator Daniel Lang and [the member for Yukon], who are supposed to ensure that the interests of Yukoners are represented in Ottawa.

Instead, they’ve kept the public out of the loop, other than [the member for Yukon] uttering vague generalities about the forthcoming changes without offering any meaningful specifics. Shame on them. Chief Eric Fairclough, chief of Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, is quoted as having said: —YESAA originates from and is rooted in our land claim agreements. It manages the use and the development of lands, waters, and resources in Yukon. As a result, implementation of YESAA may affect the exercise of aboriginal treaty rights.

In this case, the crown has not acted in accordance with its constitutional duties owed to Yukon first nations. The crown has breached its duties to work with Yukon first nations and take steps to accommodate our concerns. The crown has not acted honourably or fairly. The crown has breached its constitutional duty to act in the honour of the crown. Chief Carl Sidney of the Teslin Tlingit Council is quoted as having said: Industry and development come and go, but we are here forever and we carry that sacred responsibility.

YESAA is connected to those beliefs and values through our agreements and should not be amended without our consent. We entered into the agreements as a way forward as an expression of who we are as people. An essential part of that vision was the recognition of and respect for our land, our water, and the air we breathe. They are a part of us and we are part of our environment for all time. It is our collective responsibility as a treaty party to ensure these unique relationships will be part of our future. The amendments in Bill S-6 imposed by Canada at the last minute undermine what we have created together.

It is critical to success that we continue to work together as was the vision under our agreements. Canada's stated intention in entering into final agreements was to create certainty about the use and ownership of Yukon land and natural resources. Substantial aboriginal rights, including title, were exchanged for constitutionally protected treaty rights. That was a high price to pay to achieve certainty for all Canadians and the Yukon first nations who have signed agreements and have paid it in full.

I would like to read into the record Chief Angela Demit's words, the Chief of White River First Nation, who said: We participated in meetings with Canada about the changes to YESAA. Through that experience we have understood that the changes being proposed by Canada have much more to do with an agenda made in Ottawa than with the recommendations that came out of the YESAA five-year review process. Mr.

Tom Cove, director of the Department of Lands and Resources for the Teslin Tlingit Council, said: If I may, if the bill passes as is, the potential for litigation is a virtual, absolute certainty and is a great concern to Teslin Tlingit Council, other first nations, and a lot of Yukoners, and to investors outside the Yukon who have an interest in investing further in natural resource development, but in many other ways as well. It's of great concern and it is a virtual certainty.

I'm not exactly sure, but the last time I looked I think there are five law firms already hired to prepare the work that's necessary in anticipation of this bill going forward. That's a lot of momentum in that direction.

(1050) Chief Doris Bill, the chief of Kwanlin Dün First Nation, stated: Providing a single party with authority to direct the board is fundamentally inconsistent with any legislation that stems from our tripartite treaties. While the treaties obligate Canada to enact YESAA, it does not own YESAA and cannot choose to dictate its own policies on the independent assessment body. Ms. Millie Olsen, deputy chief of the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, stated at committee: YESAA currently has timelines for assessors to review each iteration.

This approach encourages proponents to prepare comprehensive applications that minimize iterations. Proponents who prepare adequate applications quickly are rewarded under the current process because they can proceed quickly. On the other hand, the Bill S-6 approach of applying a beginning-to-end timeline will reward proponents who prolong the adequacy review phase by using up time with multiple iterations. The approach will penalize assessors and reviewers like first nations because it will shorten the most important public review phase, infringing on our right for comprehensive reviews of projects.

Chief Steve Smith, the chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, testified at committee. He stated: Bill S-6 is a roadblock to reconciliation. The unconstitutional bill demonstrates the federal government's unilateralism and lack of understanding of the relationships that arise from the final agreements, the federal government's failure to abide by the collaborative development assessment regime mandated by the final agreements, and the federal government's indifference to fostering productive and collaborative treaty relations with Yukon first nations. This is fundamentally unacceptable. Ms.

Wendy Randall, the chair and executive committee member of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, YESAA, stated at committee: It is important to note that YESAB is not part of government. We are not a regulator. We do not issue permits or authorizations, and we do not make final decisions on projects. We are an independent board that conducts environmental and socio-economic assessments and makes recommendations to decision bodies.

Those decision bodies are the three orders of government that have control over land and resources in Yukon, so federal, territorial, and first nation governments.... We have 10 years of experience conducting environmental assessments on projects, from very small projects to very large [ones]. We have flexibility now in timelines that we have established under our rules, which for the most part, I feel, work fairly well. Certainly there are areas in which things can be improved. We have proponents. We have first nations.

We have other groups with sometimes different interests who feel there could be improvements made. I'm unsure until I see how these changes would play out or be implemented whether they would accomplish that or not. Ms. Allison Rippin Armstrong, vice-president, Lands and Environment for the Kaminak Gold Corporation, stated: —Kaminak is concerned that the process through which YESAA is being amended is creating increased distrust between governments and uncertainty in the assessment and regulatory process for current and future projects in Yukon.

I have shared the voices of Yukoners of Yukon first nations who have stood up against Bill S-6 . They are standing up against the government's agenda. As a proud northerner myself, I stand with them, along with my colleagues in the NDP, in solidarity against Bill S-6 . I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House decline to give third reading to 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 , because it: (

a) was developed without adequate consultation with Yukon First Nations, as per the government of Canada's constitutional duty, and without adequate consultation with the people of Yukon, as per the government's democratic duty; (

b) provides the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to unilaterally issue binding policy direction on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, which undermines the neutrality of the environmental and socio-economic assessment process; (

c) provides the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with authority to delegate powers to the territorial minister without the consent of First Nations; (

d) provides broad exemptions for renewals and amendments of projects; and (

e) includes proposed timelines on the assessment process that will affect the thoroughness of environmental and socio-economic assessments and opportunities for First Nation input on major projects.

(1055) The Deputy Speaker : We are out of time for debate at this point. The hon. member for Churchill will have 10 minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ English ] St. John Ambulance Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, St. John Ambulance is one of the world's oldest humanitarian organizations. It was established in Canada in 1882, and now more than 100 branches serve over 300 communities across the country, training 550,000 Canadians in first aid each year. On June 3, members from both sides of the House received a great lesson in first aid from volunteers at St. John Ambulance. Members had the opportunity to register for CPR and AED training and meet some of the 25,000 volunteers from St.

John Ambulance who were on the Hill. On behalf of all members, I would like to thank St. John Ambulance for all of the work it does to keep Canadians healthy and safe.

(1100) [ Translation ] World Environment Day Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, June 5, is World Environment Day, which was established by the United Nations in 1972. This year's theme is “Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care”, which will be celebrated in over 100 countries. People around the world are encouraged to undertake any number of environmental initiatives, whether as individuals or with others in their communities.

The purpose of this day is to raise awareness about overconsumption and the finite nature of resources, because what happens tomorrow depends on what we do today. Together we can make a difference. For instance, we can reduce water consumption, limit our use of cars and recycle our old electronic devices, because every action counts and forms good habits. In the NDP, we believe strongly in innovation for a sustainable economy based on renewable energy, because we respect future generations. That is what an NDP government will be committed to in October 2015. Happy World Environment Day to everyone.

[ English ] Doors Open Ontario Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the community in my hometown of Whitchurch-Stouffville will be participating in Doors Open Ontario. It is an opportunity for the residents of our community to see the important buildings and heritage buildings that have helped to build our community and that are so important to our community. At the same time, I want to recognize a local resident by the name of Fred Robbins.

Fred is the unofficial town historian who has been a major force in helping to bring Doors Open Ontario to our Whitchurch-Stouffville community. He has won awards for the work that he has done in helping to promote and preserve the history and heritage of our community. I want to highlight Mr. Robbins because although he may never receive the Order of Canada, he makes great contributions to our community, just as hundreds of other people do in communities across the country, who do what they do not for recognition but because they know it is right.

I want to salute Fred Robbins and all of the people who are participating in Doors Open Ontario in my hometown of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

[ Translation ] Raymond Paquin Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge in the House the contribution of Raymond Paquin, a prominent figure in the riding of Bourassa, which I have the honour to represent in the House. This year, his dedication earned him the Governor General's Award. Raymond Paquin is very involved in the Montreal North borough, where he created the Fondation de l'hôpital Marie-Clarac in order to raise money for developing the hospital.

As secretary-treasurer, he successfully grew the foundation in Montreal North by surrounding himself with business people who were ready to work with and support the hospital's executive director, Sister Pierre-Anne Mandato, and her team. Mr. Paquin spearheaded a $35-million fundraising campaign in 2011 and 2015 to build the new Mother Anselme Marie wing, which opened in early November 2014. My riding is better for his contribution. I want to congratulate and thank him.

[ English ] Parliamentary Staff Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to good staff that I have had over the past 18 years. I want to thank Al, who was my very first staffer. We learned a lot of things together. I express my gratefulness to Beth, who was a diligent worker and a very gifted writer. I acknowledge John, who was my first research assistant on Parliament Hill, and a very thorough one. Edna was my 15-year administrative assistant on the Hill, a very capable, committed staffer who made not more than a handful of mistakes in all of those years.

Wanda stepped in to effectively fill the role of administrative assistant in the constituency office during a couple of pregnancy leaves. TV did an admirable job of relating to constituents and providing me with valuable feedback from his spring and fall mobile office tours. Lori is efficient and remains chipper even in the face of difficult constituent cases. AJ is firm and sensible in serving my constituents. TJ is a good adviser and confidante and an astute legislative assistant. Susanne has filled a gap in a reassuring way for me in the significant bookkeeping and financial aspects of this role.

Lastly, Barb has been a tremendous aid in research and in collaborating with me on pro-life issues. I thank these staff members because I could not have done the job without them. Only eternity will tell the impact of what we have accomplished together. I thank each one.

(1105) [ Translation ] La Pointe-de-l'Île Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to thank the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île for putting their trust in me four years ago. These past four years have been some of the best years of my life. During that time, I have been able to meet and work with people and organizations in Mercier-Est, Mercier-Ouest, Pointe-aux-Trembles and Montreal East, all of whom love their community and are dedicated to the well-being of others. I greatly admire them.

I would also like to celebrate and thank all those who work and fight, day in and day out, to build a fairer, greener and more united society. It is an honour for me to work beside them so that together we can build a society that lives up to our expectations.

There is still much to be done to accomplish that goal, and I intend to work diligently so that the government finally makes meaningful investments in rail safety to keep all Canadians safe, so that everyone has an affordable place to live, so that our seniors can have a happy retirement and live in dignity, and so that sustainable development and environmental protection are finally priorities, for the sake of future generations. Let us continue. We can achieve this goal together.

[ English ] Orléans Para Athlete Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is with emotion that I pay tribute to Kevin Frost of Orléans, who contributes to the immense richness of our community. Kevin proves each day that one can be blind and deaf and still serve others. In the last 15 years, Kevin has competed as a speed skater and was twice blind long-track champion and three times world blind short-track champion. He holds nine world records and has been awarded 18 gold medals and one silver.

Kevin has also competed with the Canadian development para team for rowing and the para track team in running, and this year he has made the para tandem cycling team. Kevin has done missions to help 28 Mexican and Nicaraguan children hear again with new hearing aids. [ Translation ] In 2012, Kevin, a recipient of the 2010 United Way Community Builder Award, established the Impaired Speed Skating Association of Canada in order to help hearing impaired and visually impaired skaters.

[ English ] Member for Calgary East Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, 18 years ago this week, a major milestone for my family occurred. On June 2, 1997, I was elected as the member of Parliament for Calgary East . This would not have been possible without the support of my family, friends, and, most of all, the constituents of Calgary East . It has been an honour to be their representative. During this incredible journey, I have been humbled by the support and friendship of Canadians from across the country and the opportunity to represent Canada on the world stage.

My heartfelt thanks go to my immediate family: my wife Neena, my daughters Priti and Kaajal, my son-in-law Robin Martin, and my son Aman, as well as my grandchildren Devin and Evasha and, of course, my extended family. I would also like to thank my staff, my friends, my local electoral district association, my supporters, and my colleagues in the House of Commons. I look forward to seeking the trust of the constituents of the new riding of Calgary Forest Lawn in the next election.

[ Translation ] Sherbrooke Airport Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on April 29, my Motion No. 553 was adopted unanimously by the House. I would like to thank all members once again for their support. The House sent a clear message to the Minister of Transport , asking her to do her job and present, as soon as possible, the mechanisms promised two years ago. When this motion was adopted five weeks ago, it gave a great deal of hope to the people of Sherbrooke. Unfortunately, this hope is fading because this government has yet to take action.

My region is clearly at the bottom of the Conservatives' list of priorities, and that is deplorable. That is a shame, a real shame. The people of Sherbrooke deserve a government that listens to them and moves quickly to meet their needs. That is exactly what we are going to give them after the next general election, when the first NDP government takes power.

[ English ] Taxation Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians can trust only this Conservative government to give them the ability to keep their hard-earned money to spend on their priorities. Last month we learned that the Liberal leader wants to bring in a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. This is absolutely unacceptable to the people of my riding of Mississauga South . His plan would kill jobs and hike taxes on hard-working Canadians. My constituents understand that this would mean that an individual earning $60,000 would have to pay $1,000 more in taxes.

Our government rejects this, the people of Mississauga South reject this, and on this side of the House we cut taxes, we do not raise them.

(1110) National Defence Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence seems to be in denial. He pretends to be unaware of the existence of my Motion No. 517, tabled one year ago, on discriminatory discharge of Canadian Forces LGBTQ personnel, despite correspondence with me on Motion No. 517 back in February and March. In the House the minister talks only about the lawful presence of LGBTQ men and women in the military since 1992.

He ignores the long period when they were treated as subhuman under a Canadian Forces administrative order entitled “Sexual Deviation - Investigation, Medical Examination, and Disposal”. Disposal is what we do with garbage, not human beings. My motion calls on the government to issue an official apology and to revise service records to reflect the honourable service of those LGBTQ men and women discharged from or forced out of the military during this period. I want to recognize and thank members of the We Demand An Apology Network for their perseverance, especially Darl Wood and Gary Kinsman.

I join the network's members in calling on the government to finally apologize and acknowledge this period of cruel discrimination.

Taxation Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starting to notice the high-tax, high-debt policies of both the NDP and the Liberals. It is really only our government that they can count on to keep taxes low and their hard-earned money in their pockets. I will give an example. An average family of four now keeps $6,000 more in their pockets. That is to spend on their priorities. Whether their child care needs are different or whether they want to save for their retirement, it is for them to make the decision.

It also important to point out the recent addition to the Liberal leader's high-tax agenda. That is the expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would see an individual earning $60,000 pay $1,000 more in taxes. As we are starting to see in Ontario with Premier Wynne, taxpayers and job creators reject this plan, and so do we.

Canadian Middle Class Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister took power, he declared, "You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it." I wish he was joking, but that would require a sense of humour. Over 10 long years, the Prime Minister has done his best to undermine Canadian values and to make us less unified, less compassionate, and less committed to a fair society. That is why I am so proud to be on the Liberal team, where our focus is on fairness for the middle class and for those seeking to join the middle class.

Our middle-class tax cut and Canada child benefit would mean more money in the pockets of the Canadians who need it most. The Prime Minister thinks Canadians are out for themselves, but Liberals know we are all in this together. Our country does best when every Canadian has the opportunity to prosper. Come October, Canadians do not just get a different government. We deserve a better government. I stand with Liberals because Liberals stand for fairness for the middle class.

71st Anniversary of D-Day Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 71st anniversary of D-Day, the day that Canadian and Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, in their campaign to liberate Europe from tyranny and oppression. The successful landing on D-Day allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France and would come to mark what many consider to be the turning point of the Second World War, leading to the defeat of the Nazi forces and an end to their occupation of Europe. We proudly pay tribute to our veterans.

We remember their service and the sacrifice they made in demonstrating their unmatchable courage. We also thank the men and women in uniform around the world today who carry on the fight to ensure that the horrific events of World War II are never repeated. We know evil still exists in the world and we remember that our country will always stand for what is good, what is right, and what is just. To our veterans and to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, their nation is truly grateful.

Ethics Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians are finally starting to get a better picture of the Conservative and Liberal corruption that has taken hold in the Senate. It is not pretty. Thirty current and former senators have been caught misusing taxpayer funds. Some cases are serious enough to warrant police investigations. Top-ranking Liberals and Conservatives have been implicated, including the Senate speaker, the leader of the government, and the leader of the Liberal opposition. The Speaker was appointed by the Prime Minister less than a month ago.

It also seems that once they were informed the Auditor General had them in his sights, they actually decided to concoct a whole new appeals process so they could disagree with the auditor's findings. To be clear, senators named in the Auditor General's report have put themselves in charge of creating an appeals process to use on themselves. It is outrageous and it is sad. For too long Canadians have been asked to look the other way and ignore the rot in the undemocratic and unelected Senate. In October, Canadians can vote for the change they want, and actually get it.

(1115) Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals only have one plan for the economy, and it is to increase taxes. Recently, the Liberal leader talked about implementing the tax proposed by Kathleen Wynne, Liberal premier of Ontario. That would cost each person earning $60,000 a year $1,000 a year in a tax hike. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, would also be subject to the same $1,000 tax hike per year. That would kill jobs and be very costly for Canadian families. We are doing the opposite, and we are cutting taxes.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Ethics Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning to new revelations about the Senate corruption scandal. Appalling details are emerging: thirty violated spending rules, nine referred to the police for investigation; four others already facing charges, including Conservative appointee Mike Duffy, who is now on trial; Conservative and Liberal leaders in the Senate and the Conservative Speaker all implicated. The Prime Minister appointed the new Senate Speaker less than a month ago.

Was he aware at the time that the Speaker was implicated in the Senate corruption scandal? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, any abuse of taxpayer dollars is completely unacceptable. It was, of course, the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to review all of their expenses. We understand that they have received the report, and the Senate is responsible for responding to that. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is sure becoming clear why Conservatives and Liberals were so desperate to make up attacks against us in a kangaroo court, but one kangaroo court is not enough for them. It seems that after learning they were named in the report, the Senate Speaker, the Conservative government leader, and the Liberal opposition leader in the Senate actually concocted a whole new appeals process so that they can disagree with the auditor's findings. Was the Prime Minister aware of this when he appointed Mr. Housakos to be the most powerful person in the Senate? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, it was the Senate itself that invited the Auditor General in to review all of its expenses. Again, it is my understanding that the Senate has received this report, and it will be tabled on Tuesday. We eagerly await its response. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, so Conservatives are just fine with an appeals process that ends with a secret decision at a committee actually chaired by the Senate Speaker himself.

Media reports indicate that some cases could involve hundreds of thousands of dollars and more sitting senators under RCMP investigation. The unelected, unaccountable, and under-investigation Senate has had its day. When will the Prime Minister stop covering up for Senate scandals and start working with the NDP to get rid of it? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government did bring in a number of potential reforms to the Senate, which included electing senators and term limits for senators.

That was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in its wisdom decided that any changes to the makeup of the Senate had to be done with the unanimous support of all of the provinces. We are not going to get involved in protracted constitutional negotiations. We are going to continue to be focused on jobs and economic growth. (1120) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Office continues to be rocked by the Senate scandals.

The Auditor General's report was received yesterday, and there are questions about the expenses of about 30 senators, including the Speaker of the Senate, the Leader of the Government and the Liberal opposition leader. Let us just say that the entire institution has lost its credibility. How can the Prime Minister still have confidence in the Senate after such revelations? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, any abuse of taxpayer dollars is completely unacceptable.

The Senate invited the Auditor General to review expenses. We have received the report and are waiting for the Senate's response. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report shows that half of the senators are facing charges regarding claims for inappropriate expenses. The total of these expenses is apparently around $1 million. Among those identified was Senator Boisvenu, appointed just five years ago by the Prime Minister . The allegations against him are considered serious, and his file will be passed on to the RCMP.

Will the Prime Minister strongly condemn the actions of the Conservative senators he himself appointed? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it was the Senate that invited the Auditor General in to examine their expenses. The senator in question is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus. We have said all along that anybody who is clearly under police investigation needs to step out of this caucus.

Taxation Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Liberals have a plan for fairness for hard-working Canadian families. We are going to simplify the complex system of child benefit payments into one monthly payment for families that need the help, and we are going to make these payments bigger and tax free. A single mother earning $30,000 per year and raising her four-year-old daughter will get an extra $1,100 per year under our plan. Conservative income splitting will do nothing for her. Why are the Conservatives fighting so hard to keep that money from single parents who need the help? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals admit that they would get rid of the universal child care benefit, that they would cancel income splitting, that they would get rid of the child tax benefit, and that after they do all of those things, they would still come at least $2 billion short. That $2-billion hole will have to be put on the backs of taxpayers through yet higher taxes.

Then last week, the Liberal leader announced that he would impose a $1,000 payroll tax hike on every single worker earning $60,000 and on the small businesses that employ them. We will never take that approach. We will continue to lower taxes. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal plan for fairness, every family earning less than $150,000 will get a bigger monthly cheque. For example, a couple struggling to raise three kids on $70,000 per year will get an extra $380 every month from our plan.

Compare that with the Conservatives, who are giving less money to struggling families and more money to the families who do not need the help, the wealthier families. Why are the Conservatives fighting so hard to keep the money from struggling, middle-class families who need the help the most? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have now admitted that they support Kathleen Wynne's payroll tax.

That would raise taxes by at least $1,000 on every single worker, regardless of their income, and it would raise equal amounts of taxes on the small businesses that employ those workers. Those businesses tell us that they would be forced to cut wages and lay people off to pay this new Liberal tax. We are taking the opposite approach. We have cut taxes for small businesses that create jobs, and we have lowered taxes for families to help them get ahead. [ Translation ] Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is clear that the minister does not want to talk about the Liberals' Canada child benefit, since he knows that under this program, 9 of 10 Canadian families will get bigger cheques. That is what will happen and he cannot deny it. That is what all the experts are saying. The Conservatives deny this, and the minister's bad faith is becoming increasingly evident. Do the Conservatives not see that a typical family earning $90,000 with two children will receive $2,575 more under the Liberal plan, starting in the first year of a Liberal government, an amount that is indexed and tax free?

Will the minister admit this and stop acting in bad faith?

(1125) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Liberals already admitted wanting to eliminate the universal child care benefit. They will eliminate income splitting by increasing taxes for families and seniors. After all that, there would still be a $2-billion hole in their plan, which will force them to increase taxes for families even more. We are doing the opposite by lowering taxes and giving benefits to all families, regardless of income and regardless of their choice in child care.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the national chief said, we cannot move toward reconciliation when far too many aboriginal communities are living in desperate conditions. Despite that, now we have learned that the Conservatives preferred to leave $1 billion just sitting there in the coffers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs instead of funding essential services like education and access to clean water and housing. How can the government justify this gross negligence? [ English ] Mr.

Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Of course, Mr. Speaker, that member knows that is not true. Lapsed funding is not lost funding, and in the last five years, over 97% of what was marked as lapsed funding in the public accounts has been carried forward to future years and spent on a wide range of programs, programs that member and that party voted against. The delay in spending of these funds is not uncommon, because actually spending this money often involves negotiations with other parties or community votes from first nations memberships.

We will continue to make concrete investments in aboriginal peoples, and we would like the opposition to actually get on board and support that. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the question is this. How can these Conservatives look at themselves in the mirror every day when indigenous peoples live in this country in third world conditions, in mouldy homes and in schools that are falling apart, and without safe drinking water? We find out that the Conservatives have lapsed $1.1 billion returned to their coffers, money that was allocated to them.

How can they stand in this House and justify to indigenous peoples in this country this gross negligence? Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course that member knows that is not true. She knows that 97% of those lapsed funds were spent on aboriginal programming in the following year. She knows that it takes time to negotiate and get community votes for first nations spending. She also knows that she voted against water treatment plants in first nations reserves.

She voted against matrimonial property rights for women on reserves. She voted against the Canadian human rights being brought onto reserve. The New Democrats always vote against aboriginal people when they have the chance here in the House of Commons.

The Environment Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are ignoring our duty to first nations just like they are ignoring our duty to act on climate change. A new UN report slams Canada today for pulling out of our international efforts to fight climate change. The report points out that Conservatives are way off track to meet even their weak 2020 emissions target. Canada is going to show up at the G7 meetings with no credible plan.

For the sake of our international reputation and for the sake of future generations, will the Conservatives finally take the threat of climate change seriously? Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have seen a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions since we started recording and we will continue to take actions. Canada was the first country in the world to ban traditional coal-fired electricity, which is one of the largest contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

We will continue to take actions. We just recently announced that we are going to move forward to reduce emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, and we will continue to take a balanced and responsible approach. We announced further actions in three sectors within Canada: reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, reductions of chemical nitrogen fertilizers and regulating emissions from the natural gas sector. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to fighting climate change, Canada is being increasingly singled out by its international partners because of its failure to act. A UN report published by the Africa Progress Panel highlights Canada's disengagement when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada will not be proposing any concrete measures at the upcoming G7 summit. When will the government stop lagging behind on this issue, which is so crucial to our future generations? [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has announced a fair and ambitious target for Canada, and it is in line with international industrialized countries. We plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below the 2005 levels by 2030, and will continue to take actions.

We recently announced three sectors that we will continue to regulate: reduce the methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, regulate the production of chemical nitrogen fertilizers and regulate emissions from natural-gas-fired electricity. This is in addition to the actions that we took in the traditional coal-fired electricity sector and in the transportation sector.

[ Translation ] Ethics Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his office are embroiled in one of the biggest scandals in the history of the Senate. The upper chamber has become a real embarrassment for the Conservatives and the Liberals. Canadians are fed up with paying for all these illegal expenses. The Conservative champion of law and order, who was appointed by this Prime Minister , is now under investigation by the RCMP. We know that the PMO staff are up to their necks in this scandal.

What happened to the promise this Prime Minister made 10 years ago to clean up Parliament? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I just said, it was the Senate that actually invited in the Auditor General to review its expenses, and we expect that senators will continue to co-operate in that process. At the same time, we know that it is the New Democrats who owe $2.7 million to the Canadian taxpayers.

In fact, this member herself took $30,000 that was meant for her riding and redistributed it to an illegal office in Montreal, against the rules of this House, and now refuses to pay back the taxpayers. I hope that she and the other 67 members will do the right thing and pay taxpayers back. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister appointed Senator Housakos as Speaker of the Senate, but today, he and his colleagues, Senator Carignan and Senator Cowan, have just been singled out by the Auditor General's report.

They took charge of the Senate committee that deals with the report and will be the ones to set up the arbitration process. This is an absolute farce. The foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse. How can the minister be okay with this abuse of power? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Senate invited the Auditor General in and we expect all senators to continue to participate in this process.

It is unfortunate that this member refuses to participate in reimbursing the Canadian taxpayer the over $30,000 that the member owes to the taxpayer. For some reason, this member, along with 67 other members of the NDP caucus, took money out of their ridings, money meant for their constituents, and redirected it to an illegal partisan party office in Montreal, and now they are refusing to pay back the taxpayer of Canada. They should do it. Repay. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder these Conservatives have to recreate reality.

We are talking about repeated abuse of taxpayer dollars. With Conservative and Liberal senators submitting travel claims that were not really all about Senate business, these expenses were for partisan and personal events, where senators were campaigning on the public dime. Canadians are sick and tired of these appointed party cronies treating the Senate like an election slush fund. Why are the Conservatives covering up for this dysfunctional institution? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it was the Senate that invited in the Auditor General to review all expenses. At the same time, we know that the NDP caucus members, 68 of them, owe the Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million. The Leader of the Opposition himself owes $400,000 to the taxpayers. This summer the 68 of them are going to be squished into the defendant's box in the court trying to explain to the taxpayers why they refuse to pay back the money they owe them. Pay the $2.7 million back.

(1135) Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Oh, the desperate need for a smokescreen, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister 's Office has been on the inside of the Senate expense scandal from the beginning. The coverup of the Duffy spending scandal was orchestrated by the PMO. The Conservatives knew full well what their Senate cronies were up to because they were the ones who invited these senators to partisan fundraisers. The Conservative MPs here enabled the corruption of Conservative senators over there.

How can the Prime Minister continue to maintain he is innocent when all the evidence points back to his office? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Again, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The only person who has done enabling is the actual Leader of the Opposition , who hatched a scheme out of the office of the Leader of the Opposition to take funds of the Canadian taxpayers, funds meant for 68 members' ridings, and funnel them to an illegal office in Montreal. Now they owe the taxpayers $2.7 million.

They are refusing to pay that money back. I hope they will do the right thing and pay back the taxpayers. Do not spend your summer in court defending why it is that you refuse to pay them back. Just simply pay the taxpayer back. The Deputy Speaker : I would remind the parliamentary secretary to direct his comments to the Chair and not to other members across the floor. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Senate is in total disrepute. Even former Conservative prime minister Mulroney agrees that the Senate is facing an unprecedented crisis.

The Auditor General's report will confirm just how deep the rot runs. It has never been clearer that it is not only possible but it is necessary to abolish the Senate. The Supreme Court has told us how, so will the Minister for Democratic Reform tell us whether the Conservatives will finally let Canadians get rid of this thoroughly discredited institution? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we went to the Supreme Court to find out how we could get rid of the Senate, how we could abolish it, and, in fact, NDP provincial governments argued against doing so during those very same proceedings. The court has now said that it would require the unanimous approval of all 10 provinces and so far, that consensus has not come from the provinces, but if the provinces do bring that forward, then we will support it.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, every year, the Conservative government intentionally underspends in excess of $200 million. This is now five years in a row that has taken place. Every member of this chamber, I am sure, is aware of the many reserves that rely on boiling their water in order to have drinking water. Many reserves are on an advisory. Every member is aware of the deficiencies in education within the reserves.

How does the Conservative government justify stealing over $200 million a year in the past five years when the needs are so great in Canada's first nations— The Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind all members that they have 35 seconds to ask their questions and not a minute. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, that member does know that lapsed funding is not money that has disappeared.

In fact, 97% of that funding was carried forward to future years and spent on a wide range of programs. Every time we spend money on aboriginal programming or aboriginal infrastructure in this House, whether it is for waste water treatment, water treatment, education, or to give women on reserve the same rights as women living off reserve, we can count on the Liberal Party to vote against it.

[ Translation ] Government Advertising Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, $30 million could provide 300 affordable housing units, one million bus passes to seniors on a pension, summer jobs for 9,000 students, and 20 million breakfasts in our elementary schools to children who go hungry, as well as reopen nine veterans' service centres. How does the Prime Minister explain spending $30 million on 10,000 blue Conservative vanity ads?

(1140) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are informing parents about the benefits that we are providing them. In fact, the Prime Minister just increased the universal child care benefit by nearly $2,000 for each child under 6 and $720 for each child 6 through 17. The Liberals want to take that benefit away from families. In the meantime, the Liberal leader just announced that he wants to add an extra $1,000 to every worker's tax bill through a pension scheme proposed by Kathleen Wynne, in Ontario.

We are against that idea and we will keep reducing taxes. [ English ] Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, here is what $30 million can buy: 15 MRI machines; 500 registered nurses or 900 personal support worker salaries for one year; 10,000 hip, knee and cataract surgeries; 4,250 insulin pumps for our kids coping with type 1 diabetes; 15,000 doses of chemotherapy drugs for cancer patients; 46,500 injections to treat osteoporosis. In the face of so many needs, how can the Prime Minister justify spending $30 million on 10,000 obscene Conservative blue vanity billboards? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we communicate with Canadians about the benefits that the government is providing. For example, the Prime Minister has recently increased the universal child care benefit to almost $2,000 a year for each child under 6 and $720 for each child 6 through 17. The Liberals have not only announced that they would take the universal child care benefit away, but just last week the Liberal leader announced a plan to increase taxes by $1,000 on every worker who earns $60,000.

The small business employing that worker would also have to pay the same $1,000 payroll tax. That will kill jobs and set families back, and that is why we do not support it.

Infrastructure Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, many Canadians face long commutes made worse by overcrowded transit and crumbling roads and bridges. Liberal and Conservative governments have left our cities with a staggering $170-billion infrastructure deficit. They downloaded costs and failed to keep pace with the funding needs. This week, mayors from across the country are coming together to demand real federal investment in our cities; funds to cut commute times, boost local economies and make our cities more livable.

New Democrats are ready to partner with our municipal leaders to invest in our cities. Why are the Conservatives not? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is making record investments in infrastructure under the ten-year new building Canada plan. We will invest $80 billion over the next decade. We are making record investments in federal infrastructure. We are providing unprecedented support to municipalities and provinces to help them meet their infrastructure needs.

These investments will renew infrastructure, create jobs, and enhance the quality of life for Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, decades of negligence by the Conservative and Liberal governments have led to a $172-billion deficit in municipal infrastructure. That is not trivial. Our cities, such as Quebec City, need investment in order to improve the quality of life of their citizens. The best example is the Quebec Bridge, a file that has been dragging on for far too long.

By increasing transfers, in a stable and predictable way, the NDP is committed to being a reliable partner to our cities. Why do the Conservatives keep ignoring the real needs of our cities? [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of our Prime Minister , Canada has consistently led all G7 countries with respect to investments in infrastructure as a rate of GDP. We are seeing unprecedented support being provided to municipalities through the gas tax fund, which our government has doubled.

We have extended it, made it permanent, and indexed it moving forward. Many of these commitments go specifically to public transit. We have also, in our recent budget, established the public transit fund. There is unprecedented support from municipalities and provinces across the country.

[ Translation ] Tourism Industry Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Tourism Week ends tomorrow, as Montreal welcomes thousands of tourists for the Grand Prix. However, it is disturbing to note that, since 2002, Canada has fallen from 7th to 16th when it comes to the number of international visitors we get each year. The Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism was proud of the fact that he cut $22 million from the funding allocated to Destination Canada, the organization that promotes Canada abroad.

Why are the Conservatives abandoning our tourism industry and businesses? (1145) [ English ] Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, marketing investments by Destination Canada, formerly the Canadian tourism commission, are paying off. Since January 2014, overnight trips to Canada have increased by over 10%. As announced by the Prime Minister on May 22, the government is investing another $30 million over three years to Destination Canada's connecting America marketing plan.

This kind of funding is needed, but the NDP votes against it every time.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on another disturbing subject, we have learned that the Canada Border Services Agency is still deporting Burundians who do not have residency permits. The political situation in Burundi is getting worse. To date, nearly 100,000 people have fled the violence. The Canadian Council for Refugees is calling the situation catastrophic. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he is deeply concerned and advised Canadians to leave Burundi immediately.

That being the case, how can the minister justify deporting Burundians to a country in crisis? [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, these decisions are made by highly trained officials. We have a very diligent system of evaluating cases. I hope that the member respects the fact that we have a very comprehensive way of evaluating whether somebody needs to be deported or not. The safety of Canadians comes first for our government. I wish that the member would come on board with that.

Foreign Affairs Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, various media outlets are reporting that Vladimir Putin has broken the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian President Poroshenko is warning against a possible full-scale invasion from Russia. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide Canada's official reaction to these serious events. Hon. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada strongly condemns any and all violations of the INF treaty.

This is further proof of Vladimir Putin's outdated and misplaced cold war mentality. We will continue coordinating with our NATO allies to respond to Russia's military aggression. Canada has led the way when it comes to sanctioning individuals and entities with ties to the Putin regime. Whether it takes 5 months or 50 years for liberation, Canada will never recognize the annexation of a sovereign Ukrainian territory. Canada stands with Ukraine.

[ Translation ] International Trade Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, many agricultural businesses in Quebec and Canada have designed their business models around supply management. That is what enables them to supply quality foods while ensuring their own financial stability. However, when we try to find out exactly what is happening with supply management in the trans-Pacific partnership free trade negotiations, nothing is clear.

Can the Minister of Agriculture assure us that supply management will not be sacrificed during the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to promote Canadian trade interests across all sectors of our economy, including supply management. That has never prevented us from successfully completing other free trade agreements, such as free trade with the European Union and South Korea. We make no apologies for ensuring that any deal reached must be in Canada's best interests.

As always, we will only sign trade agreements if it significantly benefits Canadian businesses, workers, and families. [ Translation ] Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they can reassure us all they want, but the Conservatives are sending us mixed signals. The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is telling farmers that they will have to make concessions, and the Conservative member for Edmonton says that supply management in Canada simply has to go. Can my colleague tell us what the Conservatives have in store for supply management?

Are they going to sacrifice it, yes or no? [ English ] Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, there is no other government that has done more for Canadian farmers than this Conservative government right here. Our government understands and has expanded trade as the key driver for future economic growth in Canada. We are participating in the TPP negotiations in order to open up new trade and investment opportunities for Canadians in the regional market of close to 800 million consumers.

Our goal is to secure balanced outcomes that benefit all sectors of our economy across all regions of our country.

(1150) [ Translation ] Public Service of Canada Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' mismanagement has reached new heights: they are no longer even capable of paying all the government employees on time. Some employees in a number of departments and agencies have not been paid in two months. They have not received a paycheque in two months. It makes no sense and it is all the result of the Conservatives haphazard budget cuts. Does the President of the Treasury Board consider this to be good management? [ English ] Mr.

Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board works with all departments to make sure that our employees have a safe, and obviously good work environment. We also make sure that they are paid. This is something that the Treasury Board president will look into, and I do appreciate the member opposite raising his concerns in this place. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, one of the most basic responsibilities of any employer is to actually pay their employees, and we have a government that is not able to do that.

These are hard-working public servants who make us proud every day. However, the government has fumbled the ball on actually being able to pay them. It brought in the centralized pay system that is inefficient and has not figured out how to work out the kinks to pay our public servants. People are counting on their pay to pay their bills. They cannot wait for months without getting paid. Conservatives get their pay. We get our pay. Why do the public servants not get their pay? What are they going to do to fix this problem? Mr. Dan Albas (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I have already mentioned that we want to make sure that all employees of the Government of Canada have a good work environment and we treat our employees with respect. We also want to ensure that our employees are treated fairly. I have already mentioned that some of the concerns that have been raised today will be looked at. If the members are serious about actually helping to improve our workers, I sincerely hope that they would meet with me after question period and give more details on their concerns, and I will look into it as well.

Public Safety Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, daily now we hear reports of how the government continues to fail the RCMP rank and file. Government claims of proper funding ring hollow when RCMP members are saying they are bringing their own weapons and ammunition to work. Lack of funding is now so serious that the RCMP has been charged under the Labour Code for not providing a safe workplace due to lack of training, proper equipment, and supervision. When will the minister accept responsibility, stop the spin, act, and provide the proper resources for the RCMP rank and file? Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the government has actually increased resources to the RCMP by one third since forming government. We have also increased those resources seven times during this period, and seven times that member, the member for Malpeque from the Liberal Party, has voted against those measures. I also want to remind the member that training and procurement matters fall directly under the purview of the RCMP itself.

The RCMP has taken action following the report regarding the events and will continue to take those types of actions. This matter is before the courts, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that particular case. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness ordered the RCMP to break the law by destroying gun registry documents subject to the Access to Information Act. Now the minister is using legislation to retroactively cover up this crime and stop the ongoing police investigation into the issue.

This cover-up is so serious that the Information Commissioner has filed a preservation order in the Federal Court. How can the minister justify legislation that will retroactively nullify this criminal act? Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question. We also firmly reject any claim that the RCMP did anything wrong when it destroyed the data from the long gun registry. It did it at the will of this Parliament.

In fact, it was this Conservative government that finally ended the ineffective and wasteful long gun registry. On this side of the House, to law-abiding hunters and sports shooters, we will make no apologies for ensuring that the will of Parliament is followed.

(1155) Mining Industry Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, hundreds of pensioners from Wabush Mines in Labrador had their health and life insurance benefits cancelled this week. The previous owner of the iron ore mine has begun debt restructuring, and, as usual, the first to suffer are the retirees. Many of these people worked for the company for decades. They have been left with nothing. Their pensions may be next. They deserve to be treated better than this. What will the Conservatives do to help these pensioners? Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. Again, if he will meet with me after question period, I would be delighted to look into this matter for him. [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, three generations of my constituents worked at the Wabush mines, but now hundreds of retirees are no longer covered by the company's life and medical insurance, effective June 1, while the Wabush group is placed under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Some of my constituents spent their life working hard in the mine only to end up with nothing, not even medical insurance. What is the government doing to protect these workers? [ English ] Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we always work very hard on this side of the House to protect Canadian workers. We have created jobs, 1.2 million net new jobs. In fact, by reducing taxes across the board some 180 times, we are helping businesses survive and the workers get the funding they need. We will continue to support Canadians. The opposition wants to raise taxes. That is not only going to kill businesses, it is going to kill jobs, and it is going to hurt a lot of Canadians.

Pensions Mrs. Pat Perkins (Whitby—Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government believes that all Canadians should be given as many options as possible to save for a comfortable and secure retirement, how they want and when they want. Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please inform the House on our government's approach to helping Canadians save for their retirement? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, last week, the Liberal leader said, “We are looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario”. This would mean a new $1,000 payroll tax on every middle-class worker and the small business that employs them. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that would kill jobs and force businesses to cut wages. Our plan, by contrast, is a low-tax plan for a secure retirement.

By providing tax-free savings accounts, lower taxes for families, we allow Canadians to set aside more money and grow it, tax free, for a brighter retirement.

Telecommunications Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in a residential area of Charlottetown , very close to West Kent Elementary School, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has struck a private deal to allow for the installation of a cell tower atop a range lighthouse it owns. People in my community want to know why taxpayers will be paying for the upkeep on a public structure to benefit a private company. Parents are rightly concerned about the health impacts on their kids. Will the government put the public interest first and halt this project? Hon.

Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the approach of our government has been to engage communities constructively on these decisions. We have, in fact, changed the rules affecting the location of cellphone towers in such a fashion that there was heavy reliance upon community. In fact, in 99% of the cases that come forward, the approach of the government was to rely entirely upon the decisions made by the communities. I do not know the particulars of the case. They have not been brought to my attention before.

However, that certainly has been the policy and practice under this government when it comes to location of cellphone towers. We work together with and co-operate with communities.

Employment Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, though the global economy remains very fragile, the strong leadership of this Conservative government has steered Canada in the right direction. Could the hard-working, dedicated Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please tell the House what new steps the government is taking in this year's budget that would create more jobs?

(1200) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Oxford for his hard work as well. Canada saw a boost of 59,000 new jobs created in May. The vast majority of these new jobs were created in the private sector. Our low-tax plan is working. Since the depths of the recession, 1.2 million net new jobs have been created, nearly 90% full-time jobs and two-thirds in high-wage sectors.

While we are focused on creating jobs, the Liberal leader is pushing dramatic payroll hikes that would kill jobs and the NDP is pushing a $20-billion carbon tax that would hurt Canada's economy. Canadians can count on our Conservative government.

[ Translation ] Public Safety Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, former Alpine Canada ski coach Bertrand Charest is facing sexual assault charges involving 11 minors he once supervised. We recently learned that there are other victims. We know that Alpine Canada was informed of the situation and that it allegedly contacted the RCMP. However, there seems to have been no investigation for at least 15 years. Will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness appoint an independent investigator to shed light on this entire matter? [ English ] Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has brought in more than 30 tough-on-crime and public safety measures to protect Canadians, including many bills that deal with sexual assault and crimes against children, which are the most horrific crimes of all. It is unfortunate that the member has not supported a single measure.

[ Translation ] International Trade Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the government is raising fears about our supply management system among farmers in Montcalm, Quebec and Canada. Negotiations are being held behind closed doors. The people most affected, the farmers, are being kept in the dark. This could mean the loss of thousands of farms. In Quebec, that translates to 3,500 farms and billions of dollars in economic fallout. Can the minister reassure us that the trans-Pacific partnership will not jeopardize another segment of our economy by eliminating supply management? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to promote Canadian trade interests across all sectors of our economy, including supply management. That has never prevented us from successfully completing other free trade agreements, such as the free trade agreement with the European Union and South Korea. We make no apologies for ensuring that any deal reached must be in Canada's best interests. As always, we will only sign a trade agreement if it significantly benefits Canadian businesses, workers and families.

[ Translation ] Statistics Canada Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the Union des municipalités du Québec warned the government five years ago that eliminating the long form census would have a negative impact on municipalities because the quality and reliability of data would not measure up to that collected previously. We have learned that 1,128 municipalities, including almost 200 in Quebec, no longer have data about themselves. Statistics Canada was forced to wipe them off the map.

Will the government correct its mistake and make it possible for municipalities to better plan their development and efficiently meet their citizens' needs by reintroducing the detailed questionnaire? [ English ] Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has said that the long form census, the national household survey, has yielded high quality data that covers 97%. The Chief Statistician says that the data is robust and contains valuable information.

I encourage the member to speak to Wayne Smith, the Chief Statistician of Canada, who has in fact said that the way we are now doing this form provides quality data and information that is quite useful.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings [ 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 34 petitions.

Georges Bank Protection Act Hon. Peter MacKay (for the Minister of Natural Resources) Bill C-64. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-64,

An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1205) [ Translation ] Committees of the House Finance Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures . [ English ] The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Petitions Animal Welfare Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today and present hundreds of petitions from the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. The petitioners point out to Parliament that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of regions. They say that Canada should join the U.S., Australia and the European Union in banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur. They point out that we are the only developed country without such a ban.

I congratulate and thank this group for its hard work and diligence in collecting the thousands of petitions, which I have presented over a number of years in the House. I hope Parliament will pay attention to this issue and take action.

[ Translation ] Tobacco Products Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Canadians across the country who are calling on the government to ban fruit-flavoured cigarettes because they encourage young people to start smoking.

[ English ] Firearms Regulations Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the efforts of Shawn Bevins and Canada's National Firearms Association for their efforts in presenting this petition signed by 29,470 Canadians. The petitioners request and call upon the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to repeal

part 4(3) of the

schedule to the regulations prescribing certain firearms and other weapons, components and parts of weapons, accessories, cartridges, magazines, ammunition and projectiles as prohibited or restricted.

[ Translation ] Lac-Mégantic Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, I am presenting a petition signed by dozens of people from Lac-Mégantic who are calling on the Government of Canada to set up an independent commission of inquiry, and I stress the word “independent”. The purpose of this commission of inquiry would be to shed light on the tragic events that occurred on July 6, 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, leaving 47 dead.

[ English ] Feminine Hygiene Products Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is from the last group of Canadians who were concerned about the tax on feminine hygiene products. I present this petition to let the House know how very determined and how very grateful these Canadians are that the tax is finally gone.

(1210) Canada Post Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from citizens who are very concerned about the situation regarding door-to-door delivery. The petitioners believe that the post office provides an important link in our country and that the lack of delivery will unfairly impact seniors and persons living with mobility issues. There are 8,000 jobs at stake. It will negatively impact small business, charitable organizations and families. The petitioners ask the government to stop these devastating cuts to our postal services.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Réjean Genest (Shefford, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people from the Eastern Townships who are calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farmers to store, trade and use seeds.

[ English ] Child Poverty Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from across the country who are calling on the House to adopt Motion No. 534 to eradicate child poverty in Canada. I want to thank all of the petitioners for their hard work and thank the House for supporting the motion. I hope we will be able to move forward to actually create an action plan to end child poverty in this country.

Tobacco Products Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first is a petition signed by youth and adults who are calling for the government to ban the flavouring of tobacco products as it leads to increasing addictive behaviour in young people. This is something the petitioners are not in agreement with.

[ Translation ] Consumer Protection Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting is signed by Canadians who want life to be more affordable. More specifically, they are calling on the government to eliminate pay-to-pay fees, curtail the activities of payday lenders and set limits on the price of gas.

[ English ] Labelling of Products Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the final petition is signed by a number of individuals across the country who are calling for legislation with regard to the proper marking of carcinogenic materials in the products we use on a daily basis.

Maternal and Child Health Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition that is signed by Manitobans and many first nations across the province. They are all calling on the Minister of Health and the federal government to support maternal and child health programming in their communities and to support the work the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has been doing in this area, work that has been recognized as being a great success and a model. We certainly hope that this work will continue to be done.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1166 will be answered today. [ Text ] Question No. 1166-- Hon. Hedy Fry : With regard to Health Canada’s drug review process for prescription drugs: (

a) what percentage of approved prescription drugs currently on the market had a double-blind study conducted as part of their submissions to Health Canada; and (

b) what percentage of prescription drugs approved in 2014 had a double-blind study conducted as part of their submissions to Health Canada? Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Health, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, part (

a) of this question cannot be answered definitively. There are currently 8121 marketed human prescription drugs by drug identification number, DIN, as of April 30, 2015. This number includes both innovative and generic drugs. Many of these various drugs, vaccines and prescription medications were authorized decades ago using a paper-based system. As such, Health Canada databases do not capture detailed information on the evidence used to approve the drugs. A fact sheet on how drugs are reviewed is available at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/activit/fs-fi/reviewfs_examenfd-eng.php.

With regard to (b), the defined scope for this response was all submissions that received a notice of compliance, NOC, in calendar year 2014 that met the criteria for the

summary basis of decision, SBD. Please see: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/index-eng.php. This includes all new active substances, all priority-new active substances and all subsequent entry biologics that received an NOC in 2014. A total of 27 submissions were within the scope for calendar year 2014. Of these 27 submissions, 63% contained double-blind clinical studies to support efficacy. Submissions that fall outside the scope of the

summary basis of decision project are difficult to search by clinical study due to database and IT limitations. [ English ] 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. 1159, 1161, 1174, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1183, and 1186 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1159-- Mr. Paul Dewar : With regard to Canadian policy concerning nuclear weapons: (

a) has the government of Canada communicated or consulted with any other governments about the so-called Austrian Pledge on nuclear disarmament, that was issued following the 2014 Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, and, if so, which governments; (

b) for each such communication or consultations, was it done by the Canadian government alone or in collaboration with other states, and, if the latter, which other states; (

c) has the government encouraged other states to join the Austrian Pledge, and, if so, which states; (

d) have other states encouraged Canada to join the Austrian Pledge, and, if so, which states; (

e) what preparation has the government undertaken for the 2015 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference; (

f) what steps has the government taken to implement the parliamentary motion adopted by unanimous consent on December 7, 2010, which “encourage[d] the Government of Canada to engage in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention”; (

g) does official Canadian policy concerning nuclear weapons refer explicitly to the motion cited in ( f ); (

h) has the government explicitly referenced the motion cited in (

f) in any formal démarches to other countries regarding its policy on nuclear weapons; (

i) as a NATO member state who has attended all three international meetings on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, has the government shared the findings of these meetings with other NATO members; (

j) how has the government contributed to NATO efforts to reach its stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons; (

k) for what reasons did the government refuse to endorse the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, as delivered by New Zealand at the United Nations General Assembly on October 20, 2014; (

l) does the government agree with the statement that “[i]t is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances”; (

m) under what circumstances does the government consider that the use of nuclear weapons would be appropriate; (

n) how does the government reconcile the role of nuclear weapons in Canada’s security policy with Canada’s commitments under international humanitarian law and the NPT; (

o) what is the government assessment of the sustainability of deterrence as a pillar of Canada's security policy; and (

p) what steps has the government taken to implement the agreement of all states party to the NPT at the 2010 Review Conference, under action 5 e of the Outcome Document, to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons for security? (Return tabled) Question No. 1161-- Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (

a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIA) in 2015 year-to-date, in total and broken down by (

i) month, (ii) province; (

b) how many applications for LMIA were approved in 2015 year-to-date, in total and broken down by (

i) month, (ii) province; (

c) how many applications for LMIA were received for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2015 year-to-date; (

d) how many applications for LMIA were received for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2015 year-to-date; (

e) how many applications for LMIA were approved for high wage temporary foreign workers in 2015 year-to-date; (

f) how many applications for LMIA were approved for low wage temporary foreign workers in 2015 year-to-date; (

g) since June 2014, how many employers, with fewer than ten employees, have been granted positive LMIA, broken down by year; (

h) since June 2014, how many employers, with more than ten employees, have been granted positive LMIA, broken down by year; (

i) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (

j) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (

k) what is the process for dealing with tips once they have been received and what criteria are used to determine whether an investigation is warranted; (

l) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (

m) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (

n) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (

o) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (

p) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (

q) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (

i) month, (ii) province; (

r) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or LMIA between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (

s) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or LMIA between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (

t) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (

i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (

u) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (

i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (

v) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (

i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; and (

w) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month? (Return tabled) Question No. 1174-- Mr. Ted Hsu : With regard to both the Agricultural Innovation Program and the AgriInnovation Program: (

a) what were the successful projects, broken down by applicant, date of application, stream, amount of funding requested, amount of funding allocated, and amount of funding provided; (

b) what were the unsuccessful projects, broken down by applicant, date of application, stream, amount of funding requested, amount of funding allocated, and amount of funding provided; (

c) how many successful Agricultural Innovation or AgriInnovation Program applicants used any part of their project funding to fund work und