OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 077 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, April 30, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES April 30, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 077 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 077 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 077 (Version officielle) 147 077 30 04 2014 2014/04/30 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers

Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River . [ Members sang the national anthem ] STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members [ Translation ] Intergovernmental Relations Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the new federal Minister of Finance . Apparently he is fraught with worry about the state of Quebec's finances and Quebec's ability to return to a balanced budget.

Ironically, it is his government that changed the health care formula, which will deprive Quebec of $10 billion over 10 years; it is his government that allocated billions of dollars to Ontario's automotive industry, while abandoning dozens of manufacturing and forestry companies in Quebec; it is his government that has begun stripping Quebec of its jurisdiction over securities and undermining Quebec's entire financial sector; it is his government that ignored Quebec when it came time to award shipbuilding contracts, thereby depriving it of billions of dollars in spinoffs; and it is his government that eliminated the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

Since we all care about the Minister of Finance 's well-being, I have some advice for him: to ease his concerns, all he has to do is reverse the unfair decisions made by his government regarding Quebec. Then everybody wins.

[ English ] Battle of the Atlantic Mr. Robert Goguen (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to highlight the efforts of the local veterans associations in the riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe in putting together their ceremonial service of remembrance on the occasion of the 69th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. This service will take place on May 4, 2014. The Battle of the Atlantic ceremony is held in memory of those who laid down their lives at sea and ashore during the Second World War victory, which came at a huge cost to our navy.

Canada lost over 20 ships and 2,000 personnel. This is also a personal commemoration, as my father-in-law, Robert Green, a teenager at the time, took

part in this battle and, thankfully, survived it. I would like to encourage my colleagues, as well as the members across the aisle, to participate in similar ceremonies taking place in their ridings to honour those who lost their lives in the cause of freedom. Lest we forget.

Rail Transportation Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, last year's rail tragedy at Lac-Mégantic has prompted an examination by Parliament of the transport of dangerous goods. We learned that for 25 years, experts had been saying DOT-111 railcars were unsafe to carry dangerous goods, yet we still see hundreds rolling past homes, schools and daycares in my riding every day. The minister's announcement last week, ten months after the disaster, that these dangerous cars would continue to roll for three more years is not good enough.

At a recent town hall meeting on rail safety, residents in my riding asked why these trains were not being redirected onto safer routes, away from dense population centres. If the Transportation Safety Board says that these railcars can rupture at 20 miles per hour, why are these trains not being slowed down in populated areas? Why can the public not know what is being transported a few feet from their bedrooms? Why is the minister allowing the railroads to decide whether these routes and speeds are safe or not? My residents, and residents elsewhere living near railway tracks, deserve better.

Canada-China Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to His Excellency Junsai Zhang, ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Canada, whose tour has ended. As co-chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association, I thoroughly enjoyed working with him. During his tenure, we have experienced remarkable growth in the relationship between our two countries. Each year, Canada exports over $20 billion in goods to China, and Canadians invest over $4 billion in the Chinese economy. Our cumulative trade is estimated at $75 billion.

In addition, over 80,000 Chinese students study at Canadian institutions today, and almost 500,000 more visit Canada annually. I know our countries will continue to build upon over 130 years of friendship, as we embrace our complementarity through these and other areas of trade, as well as build stronger people-to-people ties. I wish Ambassador Junsai and his wife, Madame Yin Guomei, the very best. Canada is grateful for their service to our two nations and our two peoples.

Canadian Armed Forces Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this past week, several courageous members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces came forward about the sexual assaults they experienced while serving, and the force's disturbing response. We heard accounts of complaints dismissed by the military police, ostracism and harassment, and even rape by superior officers. In the face of daunting obstacles, these brave men and women came forward to share their ordeals, standing up for other victims of sexual assault.

It is an incredible act of bravery from individuals who already give their country so much. We need a better approach for prevention and stronger safeguards for those who come forward, and we need them now. The system in place is clearly failing. The defence minister is ultimately responsible for what happens in his department, so I appreciate the planned independent review, and I expect him to oversee strong, clear measures to correct this unacceptable situation.

To the men and women who have come forward, on behalf of my colleagues in the House, I simply want to thank them for their bravery, and we stand with them.

(1410) Council of Europe Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, May 5 marks the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe. Promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, as well as co-operation among its member states in the aftermath of World War II has long been its goal, and each year it continues to show its strength in that regard. As an observer, Canada participates in its activities on a regular basis. I have just returned from leading a delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association where members and senators took

part in discussions on the ongoing situation in Ukraine and Russia, something I know we are all deeply concerned about. The council continues to allow Canada to advance positions on key issues in international affairs. We exchange ideas on important matters in human rights, democracy, and rule of law, for example, the role prostitution laws can play in addressing human trafficking. As president of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, I congratulate the Council of Europe on 65 years of important and critical work.

Shannon Park Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday's news that the former DND property of Shannon Park has finally been transferred to Canada Lands is very welcome in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. This property has been empty since the military community left in 2004, leaving its status unclear.

After 10 years, this announcement finally provides some clarity for the Millbrook First Nation that have an outstanding land claim to Turtle Cove, for the families whose children attend Shannon Park Elementary School, and for the citizens of my riding who see the development opportunities of this neighbourhood. In the coming weeks and months, I will be speaking to constituents about their ideas on the future of Shannon Park and will be working hard to ensure Canada Lands Company follows its reported robust consultation process.

My constituents deserve the full complement of consultative efforts that Canada Lands and other levels of governments can administer, including an advisory committee of local residents. What happens to Shannon Park must not be decided for the residents of Dartmouth. It must be decided with the residents of Dartmouth.

Ukraine Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Ukraine continues, with distrust on all sides. There seems to be no political willingness to legislatively address the issue of linguistic and cultural inclusivity in the present or for the future. Leadership is needed to guarantee linguistic rights for minorities, be they Romanian or Russian, to counter the fermenting linguistic discord and restore unity to Ukraine. Such action must come from those most trusted by the majority of Ukrainians: their religious leaders.

The All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, which brings together the leadership of Ukraine's faith groups, could craft an instructive proclamation for future direction and governance of Ukraine, reflecting the desire for linguistic and cultural inclusivity and easing tensions and concerns. Orthodox church leaders and diplomatic representatives are in agreement that such an approach offers hope, and certainly it is an effort that would be constructive. The time for doing is now.

Veterans Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to commend the sacrifices made by our brave men and women who have proudly served our country. Our government is committed to supporting the selfless acts of bravery of our veterans have made by investing almost $5 billion in additional funding since 2006. In addition to the support we provide our veterans, a Canadian charity, “To the Stan and Back”, is providing further support through post-combat wellness programs for returning troops from Afghanistan.

Tonight, To the Stand and Back is hosting its sixth annual fundraiser, “Party Under the Stars”, which is always a great time while raising money for such a worthy cause. I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to attend tonight's event at Ottawa City Hall in support of the men and women who have made a tremendous sacrifice defending our great country. Lest we forget.

Fisheries Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yet another commercial fish stock off the east coast is in trouble. The quota for northern shrimp will be cut this year by 30%. That is a lot of grief that the Conservative government has chosen to inflict on the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, on our processing plants, and on our outports, which have had more than their fair share of grief. The Conservative government has decided to follow the so-called last-in-first-out policy that favours big business offshore licence holders.

This is not about conservation or economics; it is about blatantly serving the top of the food chain at the expense of our fishermen. The principle of adjacency whereby those closest to the resource benefit from the resource has been tossed overboard. The last-in-first-out policy should only work for the Conservative government and the cabinet ministers on the front bench. Our inshore fishermen, who have cast their nets outside their front doors for 500 years, should be at the front of the line. They should play second fiddle to no one.

(1415) Hamilton Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the long-awaited news yesterday that Correctional Services Canada has decided not to renew the lease of the Hamilton Correctional Centre at 94 York Boulevard and that it will close down. Everyone in the community is happy with this decision. We have felt for some time that the high-risk offenders housed there would be better served elsewhere for the safety of the community and for the offenders' rehabilitation program. I want to thank the minister for his hard work on this file.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge all the behind the scenes work done by the current mayor of Hamilton, Mayor Bob Bratina, and also former mayor of Hamilton Larry Di Ianni, who got the ball rolling on this during a time when he was the mayor. The people of the Hamilton area can now be assured of safer streets, especially as downtown Hamilton experiences a renaissance and is attracting more people and businesses to the city core. Safety and security are the highest priorities in the operation of the federal corrections system. Today there is more proof positive that this commitment counts.

Pensions Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pension experts across the country support the NDP plan to improve retirement security, but the Conservative government is twisting itself into a pretzel to avoid taking real action on pensions. Today I am asking if the government will address the issue of poverty among women seniors. Seventy per cent of seniors in poverty are women, and women are twice as likely as men to be impoverished in their retirement.

Women face lower pay for their work, career interruptions to care for children or parents, and systemic discrimination experienced by aboriginal women and new Canadians. Despite the significant gains that women have achieved, they still face many of the same challenges as their mothers and grandmothers. New Democrats call on the government to ensure the social and economic equality of women. Improving their retirement security is a key step. All Canadians deserve better.

Natural Resources Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as chair of the natural resources committee I am thrilled to speak about the importance of the natural resource sector to Canadians and to the good people of Vegreville—Wainwright constituency. The natural resources sector employs 1.8 million Canadians, including more than 32,000 first nations people, making it the single largest private employer of first nations people in this country. These are good, well-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians. The natural resources sector also contributes nearly 20% of Canada's GDP.

This allows the government to contribute to health care, education, and other programs that help support the high standard of living that we enjoy as Canadians. Our government is proud to support this important sector of the Canadian economy and will continue to support the responsible development of our natural resources and the many jobs that this sector provides for Canadians.

Canadian Kumite Karate Champion Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Christopher Coady, a talented 15-year-old from Newfoundland and Labrador who recently won the Karate Canada National Cadet Kumite championship in the under 63 kilogram division. Christopher's proud grandparents, Patrick and Sarah Brake from St. Lawrence in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, justifiably boast about his accomplishments at every opportunity.

As the Canadian kumite champion, Christopher is looking forward to competing at the Pan-American karate championships taking place this summer in Lima, Peru. Christopher's talent was obvious at an early age, when he started training at the age of six. He has been successful on the provincial and national stage. In addition to being the current national champion, he is the current Atlantic Canada karate champion and represented Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2013 Commonwealth championships and the 2013 Montreal open.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Christopher and wishing him all the best when he represents Canada at the Pan-American karate championships this summer.

Public Safety Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to keeping Canada safe and secure from radical extremists who wish to harm us and our way of life. That is why yesterday the Minister of Public Safety listed the Hamas-linked group IRFAN-Canada as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code.

This builds on our government's strong national security record that includes passing the Combatting Terrorism Act, investing nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in protecting Canadians from hacking and cyberespionage, and removing over 115,000 illegal immigrants since being elected in 2006. Contrast this with the Liberals, whose leader mused about compassion for terrorists who bombed the Boston Marathon just over a year ago and whose public safety spokesman, the member for Malpeque , opposed listing Hezbollah as a terrorist entity.

This type of reckless national security policy shows the leader of the Liberal Party is just in over his head.

(1420) Conservative Party of Canada Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister celebrates his birthday today, I wonder if he will invite his close friend and ally, Tom Flanagan? For those who do not remember, he is the guy who used to write articles with the Prime Minister in the late 1990s. He helped the PM become leader of the Canadian Alliance and Conservative parties, and managed— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest has the floor. Mr. Dan Harris : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He also managed the Conservatives' 2004 campaign. How does this stalwart of the Reform-Conservative movement describe his old friend these days? On the weekend, Mr. Flanagan said the unfair elections act shows the ruthless, vindictive, and hyper-partisan side of the Prime Minister , and he confirmed the Conservatives are indeed using the unfair elections act to give them an advantage in the next election. Even after promising to compromise, Conservatives are rejecting every single opposition amendment. No wonder his closest friends are calling out his ruthlessness.

However, while Conservatives use their majority to ram through unfair new rules, Canadians know they can count on the NDP to defend their democracy.

Ukraine Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the significant contributions of the Ukrainian community in Canada in the development of our nation's rich history and heritage. Winnipeg is home to a large and vibrant Ukrainian community. Over the past few months I have had the privilege to attend many local events in support of a free and democratic Ukraine. This past weekend I was pleased to attend the Ukrainian Professional and Business Club of Winnipeg fundraiser with proceeds being donated to the Maidan relief effort fund.

Amid developments in Ukraine, there are many upcoming events in Winnipeg that will provide Canadians of Ukrainian descent with welcomed opportunities to visibly promote their culture and heritage. Specifically, I would like to convey my best wishes to organizers of the upcoming Oseredok Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre's benefit concert gala dinner on May 10 and the Knights of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy 20th anniversary celebration on May 20. These special celebrations allow us to show our solidarity with Ukrainians working tirelessly to restore political and economic stability in their country.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Privacy Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister justify the invasion of the privacy of a million Canadians by his government? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not accept the premise of that question. What we do understand is that various Canadian investigative law enforcement and other agencies will, from time to time, request information from telecom companies. They always do this in accordance with the law. They always seek a warrant when they are required to do so.

Of course, we expect the telecom companies to also respect the law in all of their dealings. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister telling us that he thinks it is okay that a million Canadians have had their privacy invaded by his government? Is he trying to justify the unjustifiable? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not accept that statement. The reality is that law enforcement and other investigative agencies will, from time to time, request information, as is their right.

They always obtain a warrant when it is required by law. Of course, we expect the telecom companies to comply with those obligations as well. (1425) [ English ] I should also mention that we are aware that there has been considerable evolution in the marketplace since these privacy laws were passed a decade ago. There is legislation before Parliament now, and I encourage all parties to focus on that. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is actually legislation to exculpate the companies that provide the information.

The Prime Minister is trying to make it easier for the telecommunications companies to provide that information. Is the Prime Minister trying to say to Canadians that this invasion of one million Canadians' privacy was justified by search warrant? I just want to make sure that we all understand that that is indeed what the Prime Minister is trying to convince us of. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, I do not accept the premise of that question. What we do say is that privacy laws are respected by the government.

Law enforcement and other investigative agencies always seek warrants when they are required to do so. There is independent surveillance, independent oversight to make sure that these laws are respected. I should point out the proposals in the digital privacy bill before Parliament require organizations to tell Canadians if their personal information has been lost or stolen, to impose fines of up to $100,000 on those who deliberately break the rules, place stricter limits on the type of personal information that can be disclosed, and many other reforms. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, this has nothing whatsoever to do with information that is lost or stolen. As for the premise of the question, it was based on what the Prime Minister just said himself, that there were warrants in all these cases. I ask him again to confirm what he was saying, that this is based on warrants. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, telecommunications companies obviously do co-operate with law enforcement and other authorities from time to time in various investigations and surveillance.

When information is required to be handed over according to a warrant, our law enforcement agencies do that. As I said, there is independent oversight to ensure that is done. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what information is the government seeking, and why? Which telecommunications companies are handing over that information, and which are refusing to do it? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the issues in question would be those of investigative authorities, ranging from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency, and others.

It is not the government that requests information. It is independent law enforcement agencies that do that. The government is not involved in those investigations, rather there is independent oversight on those matters.

Employment Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government's mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program has driven down wages and exploited the vulnerable. They actually doubled the intake in manufacturing, even in places like London, Sarnia, Windsor, and Hamilton, where tens of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs. Has the Prime Minister now ordered his jobs minister to implement a significant reduction in the program's intake? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, if we are talking about job creation, there have been 1.1 million net new jobs created in this country since the end of the recession. There is, from time to time, as we know, demand for temporary foreign workers. In fact, those demands regularly come from the Liberal Party. In spite of those growing demands for that from the Liberal Party, the government has brought in reforms over the past few years that have reduced the application intake by 30%, and as we know, the minister is taking further strong action to ensure that Canadians always get jobs that they are available for. Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, five years ago, Sheila Fraser warned the government about the integrity of the temporary foreign worker program and the poor quality of its labour market opinions. Instead, it ignored her and has instead massively increased the intake of the program, even in places like London, Sarnia, Windsor, and Hamilton, that have been hit by job losses. Has the Prime Minister now ordered his jobs minister to implement a significant reduction in the program's intake? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course, the opposite is true.

In the intervening period, the government has taken a number of actions to reform the program and to restrict abuse, measures that have all been opposed by the Liberal Party that created the program and continues to inundate the minister with requests for more temporary foreign workers. The reason we have done these things is to ensure Canadians get those jobs. We have seen an increase, obviously, in Canadians getting jobs, 1.1 million new jobs. That is why the Canadian middle class is doing so well. (1430) [ Translation ] Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the number of temporary foreign workers in Quebec has increased by nearly 25,000 since 2008. However, there are also 36,000 more unemployed workers in Quebec than there were in 2008. Will the Prime Minister now demand that his Minister of Employment and Social Development take back control of this mismanaged program? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, since 2011, this government has passed measures to reduce application intake for temporary foreign workers and has successfully reduced that intake by 30%, despite the Liberal Party's opposition and the fact that Liberal MPs are asking for more temporary foreign workers. Even the member for Papineau , the leader of the Liberal Party, is making such demands. It is the Conservative Party that is making sure that Canadians always have the best chance of getting jobs. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Prime Minister would have us believe that his government is trying to curtail abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. In that case, we have just one question for him. If he wants to have more control over this program, which he knows has been abused as a result of his minister's mismanagement and incompetence, why is he cutting the jobs of 56 inspectors whose role it is to monitor the temporary foreign worker program? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, while the Conservative Party is reforming the program, NDP members are asking for more temporary foreign workers in their ridings. In fact, the NDP has made more requests for additional temporary foreign workers than any other party in the House. That is why we made changes, and there has been a significant drop in application intake. Contrary to what the member is saying, the reality is that we have increased the number of inspections.

[ English ] Democratic Reform Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Canada Elections has asked the Prime Minister to give him the power to compel witnesses to testify in investigations of electoral fraud. This is a power the commissioner himself says that he needs. Why is the Prime Minister refusing? Why is the Prime Minister soft on crime when it comes to investigating electoral fraud in Canada? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the investigative powers that are actually increased in this particular bill are consistent with those in other law enforcement situations, where, in some situations, one must obviously get a court order to get certain information. That is how our legal system works. Of course, as I have said repeatedly, we do not agree with the NDP's position. It is an extreme position, not supported by Canadians, that people should be able to vote even if they have no intention of providing any identification or any evidence of who they are. It is not supported by Canadians.

It is not consistent with this bill. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the only stories of fraud are from his colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville , who shared some utter nonsense here in the Parliament of Canada. Since the Prime Minister claims to want to stop fraud, I have just one question for him. The Chief Electoral Officer says that the voter identification card is even more reliable than a driver's licence. Why does the Prime Minister want to prohibit the use of the voter identification card? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the fraudulent allegations and the robocall scandal manufactured by the NDP, it was noted recently that it was another case of electoral fraud on the part of the NDP. There are 39 acceptable pieces of ID under the act. If a citizen has the right to vote, he or she has several ways to prove identification in order to do so. (1435) [ English ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, according to Canada's director general of elections, the voter identification card is actually more reliable than a driver's licence for the information it contains.

The voter identification card is the only piece of identification issued by the Government of Canada that contains an address. Why is the Prime Minister so pigheaded about this? Why will he not allow this to continue to be used? Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order, please. I think I have asked members to avoid using terms like that in the past. If the right hon. member wants to respond, the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, once again, of course, everybody involved in elections knows how easy it is to obtain multiple and inaccurate voter identification cards. That is obviously the reason why, in order to prove identification, we have 39 other pieces of identification. As members know, there are alternative arrangements that have been made available by the minister for those who need to prove their address. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 64% of young people—two out of three—did not vote.

In the latest election in Quebec, the CEO introduced a program to bring ballot boxes to campuses, and this was a success. Why does the Prime Minister want to prevent Canada's Chief Electoral Officer from taking ballot boxes to CEGEP, college and university campuses across Canada, when two-thirds of young people did not vote in the last election? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, when people do not vote, it is usually because they do not know exactly why or how to vote or how many identification options they have in order to vote.

We want Elections Canada to focus its efforts and activities on that problem.

[ English ] Employment Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs in favour of temporary workers who are paid less and are treated poorly. Conservatives keep promising to fix the mess they have made, yet it only gets worse. Will the minister acknowledge the severity of the problem and agree to an immediate independent audit? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I told the member earlier this week, we actually have put in place an auditing process for use in the temporary foreign worker program. We put in place legislative measures, which came into effect last December, allowing Service Canada integrity branch officials to go into work sites unannounced to investigate pay levels, to get the paperwork to ensure that the rules are being followed.

We will be proposing additional measures to even further strengthen those auditing powers to ensure that the rules are followed and that there are very serious consequences should employers break the rules of the program, because they must always give Canadians the first crack at available jobs. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program has been a problem for a long time. In 2009, the auditor general warned the Conservatives.

She criticized them for not enforcing the rules strictly, and she pointed out that files were poorly documented and that the department's opinions were random. Against all logic, the Conservatives responded to that damning report by relaxing the rules and increasing the number of work permits. Why are the Conservatives refusing to fix this program to ensure that Canadian workers are not wronged? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a misunderstanding.

The government never set a goal or target for temporary foreign worker numbers. That being said, the number of foreign workers depends on the number of requests for labour market opinions, which fell by 20% after fees were introduced last year. Fewer employers are making requests in the context of the program because of that change in policy.

(1440) Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, no NDP member believes that it is okay to replace a Canadian worker with a lower-paid temporary foreign worker. Excessive use of temporary foreign workers is skewing the labour market. The program is putting downward pressure on wages and working conditions, and it is creating unemployment in some regions. It is not good for businesses either. At the end of each season, they lose the workers they trained, and it is getting harder and harder for them to find skilled workers. Is that the government's plan—use cheap labour to grow the Canadian economy?

Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague is wrong. Quite a few NDP MPs have asked me to overturn officials' decisions to deny requests. Officials have said that employers in NDP ridings have not done enough to recruit Canadians. New Democrats have disagreed with the officials' decisions and tried to have them overturned. New Democrats are the ones who want to create an exemption for foreign musicians, foreign IT workers, and foreign agricultural workers. The New Democrats are being inconsistent.

[ English ] Air Transportation Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority was set up by the Liberals, against the wishes of the City of Toronto. Until 2001, the airport belonged to the city. Then the Liberals created an unelected, unaccountable port authority, taking control of the airport out of Toronto's hands and into Ottawa's. Now this unelected body thinks it is above the law and can cherry-pick which decisions of council to respect. Will the government tell the Toronto Port Authority it must respect the democratic decisions of Toronto City Council? Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is an independent organization that has many agreements with the City of Toronto for which it is held accountable and that it has to be able to fulfill, too. It is very important that port authorities and airport authorities have good communications with their local communities. I encourage them to sit down and talk with their local council members, and as well, to talk to their council in general about how to better further economic development through the use of port assets.

Employment Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, while imposing a moratorium on temporary foreign workers in the food sector, at the same time the government advertises to companies that they can bring in young foreign workers under the exchange program, with no labour market opinion and no rules on wages. The government says we have a moratorium, and then it says, “Do whatever you want”. How can the moratorium mean anything when the government still advertises LMO-free foreign workers for the food services industry? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Markham—Unionville . He is learning just bit by bit that the program is larger than the labour market opinion stream. The truth is this. There are tens of thousands of young Canadians working around the world on youth mobility programs. They are getting good experience abroad, which they may put to work in the future, perhaps running businesses.

In order for them to be able to do that, we have to admit, on a reciprocal basis, young foreigners to Canada to work and experience this wonderful country as well. I do not know what he is proposing, but does he really want us to tell those Canadians working abroad that— The Speaker : The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister bragged about that program yesterday, the reciprocal aspect of it that was a benefit to all. The reality is that there are three times as many foreign youth workers in this country than there are Canadians working offshore.

Look at Poland, with 753 Polish workers here in Canada. How many do we have in Poland? We have four. Look at Croatia, with over 300 Croatian workers here in Canada. How many do we have there? We have two. With 225,000 fewer youth jobs under the government's guidance, how can he accept that as reciprocal?

(1445) Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is always— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. The hon. Minister for Citizenship and Immigration now has the floor. The hon. minister. Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear members of the Liberal Party stand up and denounce a program that they created in 1951 and then expanded dramatically in 2003. We will leave it to them to answer those questions about their lack of consistency.

The truth is that the job opportunities in Canada are much better, thanks to this government, than they are in many of our partner IEC countries. Thanks to the leadership of this Prime Minister , thanks to the leadership of this team, 1.1 million net new jobs, a lower youth unemployment rate today than— The Speaker : The hon. member for Wascana. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, because of the government's mismanagement of temporary foreign workers, employees and employers alike have been damaged. Legitimate employers with real job market needs have been jeopardized.

Canadian jobs have been lost, some wages have been driven down, some foreign workers have been abused, all because of Conservative incompetence. Conservatives have run this program for eight years, and they have run it into the ground. It is on their watch. It is their responsibility. Can Canadians at least get a commitment that the government will get this mess investigated and fixed and the program salvaged before this summer? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, it is interesting hearing from that particular member.

I was in his constituency a couple of months ago and met with several dozen employers. They said that their only issue was the labour challenges that they were facing. They said the rules of the program were far too tight. That is perhaps why that member and so many of his colleagues make representations to overturn the decisions of our officials with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. Let us be clear. We are going to ensure that Canadians come first in the labour market and, if there are abuses or if the labour market is distorted, those issues are addressed.

Privacy Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner is mandated by Parliament to protect the privacy rights of Canadian citizens. When she raises red flags about a million cases of warrantless snooping on the Internet and telephone use of Canadians, she deserves answers. Instead, she is being stonewalled by both the telecoms and the government. Will the government explain whether or not it approves of this open season on the use of data that belongs to Canadian citizens? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, before we tabled Bill S-4 , the digital privacy act, I spoke to the Privacy Commissioner and got her views on how to best move forward with modernizing Canada's intellectual property laws. I spoke to her this morning about the story that has been in the news recently, and in fact here is what she said about our digital privacy act and our efforts to best protect Canadians online. She said, “...I welcome the proposals...” in this bill. This bill contains “...very positive developments for the privacy rights of Canadians...”. We work with the Privacy Commissioner.

We protect the best interests of everyday Canadians, and we are making sure that we move forward to modernize our digital laws. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a guy who was going to beat up on those big, bad telecoms, but boy oh boy, when it comes to unwarranted snooping, let us all be polite here. If Canadians are being spied on, they have a right to know. After all, Canadians are paying for this.

The telecoms charge $1.25 every time the government comes snooping on Canadians, so if their numbers are right, that means Canadian taxpayers are paying over $1 million a year to be spied on. Will the minister confirm to the House how much taxpayers' money is being used every year in this warrantless snooping on the private words of Canadians online and on telephones? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think my colleague quite understands the law. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act,

section 7, spells out very clearly the kinds of information that are being sought by different agencies of the government, and they all relate to public safety, national security, and criminal investigations. That is what this is about. We have moved forward, as I said, to further protect the privacy of Canadians online. The digital privacy act does that. We have worked with the Privacy Commissioner in developing these proposals. We have put them before the Parliament of Canada.

If the NDP has any ideas that it wants to bring forward to draw into our legislative process, we will entertain them. [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we realize that there are times when telecommunication companies might have to hand over private customer information to government agencies in the interest of national security. However, this should never be done without a warrant, and I would be surprised that it needs to be done 1.2 million times a year.

The biggest concern here is not that the agencies have practically unlimited access to this data, but that the Privacy Commissioner has no access to any information about these transactions. If the government agencies can access the data whenever they want, then how does the minister explain that the telecommunication companies can refuse to co-operate with the Privacy Commissioner?

(1450) Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the companies must co-operate. I believe that Bell is appearing before a Senate committee today to answer such questions. If my colleague wants to ask those types of questions at one of the House of Commons committees, he can ask these companies to come testify. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, they cannot deliver the mail, but they can look at our email. It is mind-boggling. The minister talks as if it were normal to spy on the private lives of 785 million people, as if this were just a precaution.

We have the government requesting private information about the public and getting that information without a warrant. Then we have the telecommunication companies failing to notify their customers that their information is being handed over to the government. In the meantime, the commissioner is trying to shed light on what is happening, but the companies are putting up roadblocks. Will the minister compel the telecommunication companies to co-operate with the Privacy Commissioner in all circumstances? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, indeed, the telecommunication companies must absolutely act effectively and responsibly towards all those they provide services to. There is no doubt about that. [ English ] Equally, we have put legislation before Parliament that further protects the privacy of Canadians, Bill S-4 . The NDP had a private member's bill with regard to the same piece of legislation that did not address this issue, did not even raise the topic, did not offer any amendments, and did not offer any solutions. Contrast that with what we have done.

We have put forward the digital privacy act, consulted with the Privacy Commissioner beforehand, spoken with her all throughout the process, and put forward legislation, which she endorses, that says we will protect the privacy of Canadians.

Foreign Affairs Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the situation in Ukraine remains very troubling to me, to my constituents, and indeed to all Canadians. Russia's illegal occupation of Ukraine and provocative military activity remains a serious concern to the international community. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of any additional steps Canada is taking in response to the situation in eastern Europe? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Souris—Moose Mountain for that question.

Our government and our country remain steadfast in our support for the people of Ukraine in the face of ongoing militarism and aggression by the Putin regime. Today, I am pleased to announce that we are committing the HMCS Regina , which is currently deployed in the Arabian Sea, to NATO's reassurance package.

Pensions Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians face a significant drop in their standard of living after retirement, but the Conservatives continue to block any real progress to addressing this crisis. Now we see provinces losing their patience and unveiling their own go-it-alone pension plan. Everyone knows that expanding the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan is a better solution: lower fees, higher returns, and more retirement savings for all Canadians. Will the minister face up to the facts and boost the CPP? Hon.

Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the only thing the hon. member did not mention was that it includes higher taxes. Why do New Democrats not understand that hiking CPP costs for Canadian workers and decreasing their paycheques while the economy is still fragile can kill thousands of jobs? In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that the plan put forward by the NDP's big union bosses could kill up to 235,000 jobs. Canadians simply cannot afford higher payroll taxes. They cannot afford higher CPP payroll taxes.

Canadians cannot afford the NDP. [ Translation ] Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing a very dangerous game by refusing to take action. Our seniors' ability to retire with dignity is at stake. As if it were not enough to block improvements to the Canada pension plan, the minister now wants to attack the private pension plans that Canadians are counting on. Why does the minister want to help businesses weaken their employees' pension plans? (1455) [ English ] Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, again, Canadians cannot afford to pay higher mandatory taxes at a time when we are in a very fragile global recovery. Let me quote Susanna Cluff-Clyburne of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who said: The more you increase the cost of bringing employees into the workplace, it’s going to put up a barrier to creating...jobs. Unlike the opposition, this government has been focused on creating jobs, focused on skill development, and focused on building this economy again. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, let us read a quote from the finance minister's own department, which said, “...expanding the CPP would bring economic benefits”. The minister refuses to listen to the premiers, refuses to listen to the experts, refuses to listen to Canadian seniors, and refuses to listen to his own department. This is not a partisan issue; it is simply common sense. Boosting public pensions helps Canada's economy and, particularly, small businesses. By the way, it allows Canadian seniors to retire with dignity.

Will the minister put aside his ideological blinders long enough to listen to Canadian seniors, work with the provinces, and boost Canada's pension plan? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP plan to raise CPP payroll taxes while our economy is still fragile can cost tens of thousands of jobs. Maybe the NDP does not understand how the economy works. Maybe the NDP does not understand that we want to create jobs, not watch them walk out the door. The NDP should know that it is very difficult to have a healthy retirement plan tomorrow if we do not have a job today.

Despite the NDP's reckless plans, we continue to stand up for lower taxes, job creation, and economic growth for all Canadians.

[ Translation ] Securities Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is simply putting off problems so that it can continue to hide its head in the sand. In December 2011, the courts reprimanded the Conservative government for trying to unilaterally impose a single securities regulator. Three years later, it is clear that the government did not learn from its mistakes. It is again trying to move ahead with this proposal, without the agreement of the provinces and with marked opposition from Alberta and Quebec in particular.

I would like to know if the minister will comply with the Supreme Court ruling and not go ahead with this proposal without the agreement of the provinces, including Quebec and Alberta. Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only developed country in the world without a national securities regulator. We will comply with the Supreme Court's recent decision. However, we have been working with the provinces for some time to establish a single Canadian securities regulator.

We were pleased to announce that a co-operative regulatory system had been established with Ontario and British Columbia. We are awaiting other announcements.

[ English ] National Defence Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Conservative mismanagement means our air force is stuck with aging CF-18 jets, while Canadians are stuck with escalating costs, regardless of which replacement is selected. The government first said the F-35s would cost $9 billion, then it said $16 billion, then $29 billion, then it admitted to $46 billion. Some analysts estimate it risks being tens of billions of dollars more. This project has been an epic failure.

Now the Conservatives are hiding the very report analyzing options for the largest military procurement in Canada's history. When will they be transparent and at least release the supposedly public report? Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, an independent panel ensured that the evaluation of the options to replace the CF-18s was rigorous and impartial, and that the results to be made public will be comprehensive and understandable. Non-classified, non-commercially sensitive information that is contained in the evaluation of the options will be released.

Democratic Reform Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives failed to submit an amendment to Bill C-23 to give the Commissioner of Canada Elections the power to compel testimony. Well, I wonder why. The Conservative Party knew that the commissioner did not have this power, and that is why it ordered other Conservatives not to co-operate in the investigation of election frauds. Liberals have submitted the amendments. Will the minister finally do the right thing and support this amendment, or will he continue to protect Conservatives from election fraud investigations?

(1500) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the problem that the commissioner had with the investigation is that he discovered there was nothing to investigate. The hon. member across the way should finally admit that he and his party engaged in a whole series of false allegations, trumped-up allegations that have been proven completely false. Also false is the idea that both he and the NDP continue to suggest and put amendments toward: to allow people to vote without presenting any ID whatsoever.

We reject that idea completely and, unlike in the last election, after the passage of the fair elections act, every single person who votes will be required to show ID.

National Defence Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when they were elected, the Conservatives promised to increase the number of military personnel to 75,000 full-time members and 35,000 reservists. Now defence experts are saying that budget cuts mean that even keeping the current targets of 68,000 full-time members and 27,000 reservists is going to be difficult. Can the government confirm today that with these cuts, no bases will be closed, and that it will not reduce the number of full-time members of the Canadian Armed Forces? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there have been no cuts under this government. In fact, there has been more investment in Canada's military operations than there has been heretofore in the existence of this country. I can let the hon. member know that despite the continued opposition of NDP members and their colleagues in the Liberal Party, we will remain committed to Canada's armed forces in the future. [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, in their 2008 defence strategy, the Conservatives promised significant investments, but nothing ever came of that because of their incompetence when it comes to managing defence procurement. Now the Department of National Defence is in the same boat as the other departments: it has to make cuts so that the Conservatives can hand out pre-election goodies in 2015. The senior defence staff has proposed a terrible solution, namely to cut personnel. Can the minister promise that he will not reduce the number of full-time members of our armed forces? [ English ] Hon.

Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely wrong. Despite the NDP's continued opposition, there has been unprecedented investments in the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. The equipment level is at an all-time high, and that will continue under this government.

Sealing Industry Mrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, radical animal rights groups continue to slander hard-working Canadian sealers, comparing them to Nazis and likening investments in the seal hunt to flushing money down the toilet. Many Canadians, including my constituents in Miramichi, are fed up with the lies, the sneers, and the slanders of these animal rights groups. Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reiterate the government's position on the seal hunt? Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I know that everyone in this House will agree with me when I say that comments by an anti-sealing activist comparing the seal hunt to Nazi concentration camps are absolutely disgusting and an insult to all victims of the Holocaust. Animal rights activists have sunk to new lows, attacking an industry that supports rural, coastal, and northern Canadian communities. The Canadian seal hunt is well regulated and humane, and contrary to the misinformation constantly being spread by so-called animal rights groups, Canada has not hunted a whitecoat seal in more than 30 years.

We will continue to stand with the sealing industry.

[ Translation ] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, just how far will the Conservatives go to undermine CBC/Radio-Canada? Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages realize that the Canadian government's support for the public broadcaster is now proportionally 24% less than the average support in OECD countries and four times lower than what the BBC receives? Is the minister going to come to the realization that it is time for her to take a stand in cabinet to address this situation?

Will she stand up today and say that supporting high-quality public broadcasting is a choice we make as a society? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we recognize the role that CBC/Radio-Canada plays in Canadian society. That is why we are making a significant investment in CBC/Radio-Canada. I think that my colleague is referring to the cuts announced by CBC/Radio-Canada. I will repeat that CBC/Radio-Canada's cuts have nothing to do with government measures.

We are asking CBC/Radio-Canada to continue fulfilling its mandate under the Broadcasting Act and to produce programs, in French and in English, that all Canadians want to watch and listen to.

(1505) Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when even the Liberals are talking about it, there is a big problem. Yesterday, 17 respected CBC/Radio-Canada journalists, including Patrice Roy, Céline Galipeau and Alain Gravel, protested the death by a thousand cuts of CBC/Radio-Canada. Over a five-year period, the budget of the French-language news service has been cut by 20%. CBC/Radio-Canada does make its own decisions, but the Conservatives' cuts have direct consequences on the content and diversity of information.

The Government of Quebec has demanded a meeting with the Minister of Canadian Heritage . Can the minister tell us when she plans to meet with representatives of the Quebec government? Is she prepared to reconsider her cuts? Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the decisions made and announced by CBC/Radio-Canada have nothing to do with government decisions.

Speaking of CBC/Radio-Canada and broadcasting, the corporation's president himself said that the decline in the number of viewers in specific demographic groups and lower advertising revenues caused this situation. That is why those decisions were made. Once again, we recommend that our opposition colleagues speak directly to Hubert T. Lacroix from CBC/Radio-Canada.

[ English ] Canadian Heritage Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister for Multiculturalism . Would the minister be able to provide the House with an update on the government support for and the status of the act to establish April 2 as Pope John Paul II day in honour of a champion of freedom and human dignity? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and indeed for his bill.

We all watched with great interest as Pope John Paul II was canonized as Saint John Paul II on Sunday, a man who meant so much to millions of Canadians. That would be recognized by the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville 's bill. Regrettably, it has been sitting dormant on the order paper at the Senate for, I gather, eight months. One particular senator in the opposition in the other place has put a freeze, effectively, on the bill. We would respectfully ask that the freeze be removed and that the bill proceed to a vote so that all Canadians can recognize this champion of human freedom next year.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, five years ago, Peguis First Nation in Manitoba was hit by a major flood. This year, 136 people have been evacuated. So far the response has been to relocate only 15 out of the agreed 75 homes. The federal government has done nothing for permanent flood mitigation and rejected a proposal to support the emergency operations centre that would allow Peguis to deal with major flooding. Why will the government not live up to its obligations for short- and long-term flood protection for first nations in Canada? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the health and safety of all Canadians, including first nations, is a priority of the government. The hon. member refers to flooding taking place, and as we speak, officials from my department, of the government in question at the provincial level, and first nations are working together to deal with the flooding situation. Last November, we announced a new comprehensive single-window approach to emergencies, a financial arrangement that will ensure we can deal with mitigation.

Natural Resources Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Cons. Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement guarantees the U.S. an unfettered supply of Canadian oil in exchange for unfettered access. In the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, approval is a no-brainer, particularly if one believes that the creation of good-paying jobs and energy security are a priority for the citizens of both countries. Our Prime Minister has succeeded in securing overwhelming support of the U.S. legislators, business leaders, and everyday American citizens.

Now the Prime Minister has the opportunity to do something historic. A NAFTA challenge in support of Keystone approval will be the very first in the history of the agreement to enjoy majority support from both the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament. Will the Prime Minister undertake such a challenge?

(1510) Hon. Greg Rickford (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on responsible resource development that protects the environment and creates safe communities, jobs, and economic growth. It is for this reason that we have been clear in our support for energy sector infrastructure and improving access to markets. The United States in particular would benefit from this project, for obvious key strategic reasons. Canada has the resource in abundance and is geographically well positioned to serve the United States' continued demand for energy products.

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 20 petitions.

National Metastatic Breast Cancer Day Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) Bill C-594. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-594,

An Act respecting a National Metastatic Breast Cancer Day . She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose and introduce

an act respecting a national metastatic breast cancer day to be designated as October 13. This particular date is recognized by many countries in the world as metastatic breast cancer day. I want to thank the Canadian Breast Cancer Network for its support and encouragement for bringing in this bill. I want to add that the bill is important, because 24,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Approximately 5,000 of those will die from the disease, 10% will have an initial diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer, and 30% of those diagnosed will actually develop it later on.

I am hoping that members will support this bill. It is a very important bill, and it requires that we recognize metastatic breast cancer. In fact, one can be diagnosed with breast cancer at the beginning and it would seem that it is okay, and suddenly one has metastatic disease. This is very important for women in Canada. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Canada Post Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in my first petition, the undersigned are calling upon the government to reverse the cuts in services announced by Canada Post and to instead look for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

Impaired Driving Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in my second petition, the undersigned acknowledge that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. In the interest of public safety and as citizens of Canada, they want tougher laws through the implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing.

Blood and Organ Donation Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Third, Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that call upon the government to review thoroughly and change the policy on blood and organ donation in Canada. They ask that the sexual preference of people not be an instant refusal to the right to donate.

Impaired Driving Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my fourth petition, a large one, is calling upon the Government of Canada to make several changes to the current drinking and driving laws in Canada and to make a change to the Criminal Code of Canada in respect of penalties.

Avro Arrow Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, my final and favourite petition is signed by 26 Canadians. The petitioners request that the House of Commons take out of storage the last remaining Avro Arrow and stop the needless spending of our tax dollars to keep it in storage. The Avro Arrow today should be considered a museum piece to pay tribute to Canada's contribution to the advancement of science and technology, of which— The Speaker : I am going to stop the hon. member there. There are many members rising, and if each member took a full minute, we would not get everybody in.

I am going to ask two things. One, I will ask members to very quickly present their petitions, especially when they have multiple ones, and for those who are not presenting petitions, either remain in their seats or take their conversations outside. The hon. member for Sudbury.

Canada Post Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the chamber to table a series of petitions signed by a great number of Canadians, most of them from my great riding of Sudbury. They call on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and to look instead for ways to innovate, for example by establishing postal banking services.

(1515) Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two different petitions on behalf of my constituents. The first petition has to do with what is happening with Canada Post and its decision to reduce services, particularly in rural communities. I have petitions, particularly from the residents of Harbour Breton and the surrounding area, asking the government to get after Canada Post to stop doing this because of the harm it is doing in communities, in particular in those areas where there is no high-speed Internet.

The fact of the matter is that this is the only service in some rural communities where people can get not just postal service but other services as well.

The Environment Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by residents who want a ban on hydraulic fracturing. They are calling on the Government of Canada to impose this ban as soon as possible.

Divorce Act Mr. Phil McColeman (Brant, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition from individuals in my riding in support of private member's Bill C-560 for amendments to the Divorce Act.

Shark Finning Mr. Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who want the government to take measures to stop the global practice of shark finning and to ensure the responsible conservation and management of sharks. The petitioners call upon the government to immediately legislate a ban on the importation of shark fins to Canada.

The Environment Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from residents living on New World Island, Twillingate Island, Change Islands, and Fogo Island. A paper carrier sank in the area in 1985, and it is now starting to spew oil. In fact, it has been spewing oil for the past year, or perhaps even longer. The petition is signed by residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who implore the government to come up with a long-term solution, not a short-term solution, to get the oil out of that boat before there is a major environmental catastrophe.

Anaphylaxis Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today on behalf of members of the Canadian Anaphylaxis Initiative. The petitioners are asking Parliament to enact a policy to reduce the risk of an anaphylactic reaction for passengers, applicable to all forms of passenger transportation in the federal jurisdiction.

Rail Transportation Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by over 500 people across the country. The petitioners call upon the government to contribute to the funding necessary for the repair and maintenance of the track between Bathurst and Miramichi and to obtain a guarantee that Canadian National will keep the line between Bathurst and Miramichi open in order to maintain VIA Rail service in eastern New Brunswick and Quebec. [ Translation ] I am also pleased to present three petitions signed by 250 people.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to contribute to the funding necessary for the repair and maintenance of the track between Bathurst and Miramichi and to obtain a guarantee that Canadian National will keep the line between Bathurst and Miramichi open in order to maintain VIA Rail service in eastern New Brunswick and Quebec.

[ English ] Blood and Organ Donation Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that speaks to the fact that any donation of blood and organs should be based on evidence and testing and not on stereotyping, that denying persons the right to donate blood and organs because of sexual orientation may very well be unconstitutional, and that any person should have the right to donate blood and organs on a universal basis.

Agriculture Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from a number of petitioners in my riding in the Waterloo region. The petitioners ask Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 .

Blood and Organ Donation Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of constituents in my riding of Newton--North Delta in support of the iCANdonate campaign. These petitioners call upon the government to change the policy on blood, organ, and bone marrow donation in Canada. They are asking that sexual preference not be an instant refusal of a person's right to donate.

Canada Post Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents of Newton--North Delta to present two petitions, each protesting the Conservative government's decision to end door-to-door mail delivery for Canadians, increase postal rates, and close post offices across this country. Via this petition, my constituents are asking the government to reverse these job-killing changes— The Speaker : I am going to have to interrupt the hon. member. There are still many members rising, and we are now down to about eight minutes. I would ask members to redouble their efforts to be brief. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

(1520) Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today. The petitioners are asking that the sexual preference of people not be an instant refusal of the right to donate. They request that the government return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to fill the need. No matter race, religion, or sexual preference of a person, the right to give blood or donate organs is universal for any healthy man or woman.

Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions. The first petition is from a number of Canadians, representing 92% of Canadians, calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of discriminating against girls through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition highlights that Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. The petition from Families for Justice is calling for much more stringent sentencing, actually mandatory minimum sentencing, for anyone found convicted of driving while impaired and causing death.

[ Translation ] 41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, today, I have the honour to rise to present two petitions. [ English ] The first petition is from residents of Ontario calling for a full investigation into the 2011 misuse of telephone calls to mislead voters, called the robocall scandal. Despite recent reports from Elections Canada, the ruling of Mr. Justice Mosley to the Ontario court leaves many questions unanswered, and an inquiry is called for.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of my own riding in Saanich—Gulf Islands, primarily from Pender Island, calling for the government to fully study any proposal for tankers and pipelines along the B.C. coast and to reject those that pose excessive risk.

Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the residents in my riding have signed, and continue to sign, a number of petitions protesting the loss of home mail delivery by Canada Post. They call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.

Blood and Organ Donation Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as well I have the pleasure of tabling petitions in support of the iCANdonate campaign to permit blood, bone marrow, and organ donations from any healthy Canadian, no matter his or her race, religion, or sexual preference.

Lyme Disease Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions on Bill C-442 , the national Lyme disease strategy.

Agriculture Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present three petitions on Bill C-18 and the Seeds Act.

Proportional Representation Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to also present a petition from numerous constituents on proportional representation.

Human Rights in Venezuela Mr. Patrick Brown (Barrie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, finally I rise to present a petition from several hundred constituents, on human rights abuses in Venezuela.

Canada Post Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present two petitions from residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan asking the government to reverse the cuts to postal service.

Blood and Organ Donation Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also on the campaign calling on the Government of Canada to reverse its policy denying the donation of blood based on sexual preference. Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to table seven petitions for the iCANdonate campaign. The petitions are from numerous Canadians asking the government to review thoroughly and change its policy on blood and organ donation in Canada.

Consumer Protection Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of residents in my riding of Davenport in the great city of Toronto. These are folks from streets like Dufferin, Lindsey, Rusholme, and Macklem. The petitioners want the government to ban pay-to-pay fees. These are the fees that companies charge, largely seniors and those on fixed incomes, to get their bills in the mail.

Blood and Organ Donation Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Canada who call on the Government of Canada to review thoroughly and change the policy on blood and organ donation in Canada. They understand absolutely that people should be pre-tested for disease, and if they fail, they cannot donate. However, the petitioners request that the Government of Canada return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need, no matter what the race, religion, or sexual preference of that person.

[ Translation ] Algoma Central Railway Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to present a petition signed by residents of Chapleau, Dubreuilville, Hearst, Mattice, Wawa and Hawk Junction regarding the Algoma Central Railway. The government created a crisis when it took away this railway's subsidy. The government provided some funding for this year, but people are still concerned. The petitioners want to ensure that if there are any other such changes, the government will consider holding extensive consultations with the parties concerned.

(1525) [ English ] Consumer Protection Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. It is about unfair extra fees and consumer ripoffs. Unfortunately, the clerk has said that the petition cannot be tabled in the House. However, I know that about a month ago, we did ask for unanimous consent to table a petition on the government side, so I am hoping we can do the same today. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have consent to table a petition that does not seem to be in the proper form? Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ] Employment Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition that calls on the Government of Canada to develop a national urban workers strategy in order to find solutions to the challenges facing those workers.

VIA Rail Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions signed by nearly 400 people. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to contribute to the funding necessary for the repair and maintenance of the track between Bathurst and Miramichi in order to keep the line open and maintain rail service in eastern New Brunswick and Quebec.

[ English ] Agriculture Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first petition is from residents of Rossland, B.C., asking us to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders Rights' Act through Bill C-18 .

Health of Animals and Meat Inspection Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of my bill, Bill C-571 , which comes under here as Bill C-322 , to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horsemeat products for human consumption.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Privilege Remarks by Minister of State for Democratic Reform—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 10, 2014, by the House leader of the official opposition regarding alleged misleading statements made by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform during oral questions. [ Translation ] I would like to thank the House leader of the official opposition for raising this matter, as well as the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments. [ English ] The House leader of the official opposition claimed that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform had deliberately misled the House when, in providing answers during question period on April 2, 2014, with respect to why voter information cards were being removed as possible forms of identification for voters, he stated that, “There are regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times”.

The House leader of the official opposition alleged that this was an answer based on reports that the minister of state knew made no such claim as evidenced by the minister altering his response the following day when he spoke only of “[...] cases where people received multiple voter information cards”.

This, argued the opposition House leader, constituted ample proof that the minister of state offered misleading statements to the House knowingly and with the intent to mislead members. [ Translation ] The Minister of State for Democratic Reform countered those allegations, citing examples from the Elections Canada website of voters having received multiple voter information cards and voting multiple times.

These he offered as proof of the accuracy of his original comments. [ English ] In raising this issue, the House leader of the official opposition has again asked the Chair to determine the degree of accuracy or truthfulness of an answer to see if, on the face of it, it constitutes an instance in which the House was misled. Members must recognize that there are limits as to what the Chair is authorized to do in this respect.

As I reminded the House as recently as January 28, 2014, at page 2204 of Debates : Successive speakers in our House have maintained our tradition of not intervening in respect of answers to questions, and I do not intend to change that. [ Translation ] As Speaker Milliken stated on December 6, 2004, at page 2319 of the House of Commons Debates : Disagreements about facts and how the facts should be interpreted form the basis of debate in this place. [ English ] Thus, it is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct.

Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and

interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period. As Speaker Jerome put it so well on June 4, 1975, at page 6431 of Debates : (1530) [ Translation ] ...a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , second edition, at page 145, goes further when it recognizes that: In the vast majority of cases, the Chair decides that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made. [ English ] Given this last citation, the Chair finds itself in the position of having to point out to the House leader of the official opposition that in citing certain cases as precedents, he may have left an erroneous impression about the frequency of such incidents. In fact, most if not all of the precedents referred to were simply disputes as to fact, as is overwhelmingly the case.

The Chair has carefully considered the current case and the usual wisdom prevails here as well. There is no evidence to suggest that this situation is anything more than a dispute as to facts or that the opposition House leader has in any way been impeded in the performance of his duties as a parliamentarian. Thus, I cannot conclude that this qualifies as a prima facie question of privilege. I thank honourable members for their attention.

Points of Order Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food Points of Order Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression, and in fact we had been advised, that the Chair would be delivering a ruling on my point of order raised in the House on April 10 with respect to the amendments passed by the agriculture committee regarding Bill C-30 . The Chair is not in a position to offer a ruling now, but I was curious if you might be able to advise the House when that ruling might be forthcoming.

As you can appreciate, I, the government House leader, and, I suspect, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are very anxious to hear your ruling. The Speaker : I appreciate the hon. member's interest, and I can understand many members would have an interest. I will assure him it will be delivered to the House without too much more delay, but it will not be today.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ Translation ] First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) moved that Bill C-33,

An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-33. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to open debate on Bill C-33, the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act , and mark what I believe is a pivotal moment in ensuring the future success of first nations children and youth in Canada.

I firmly believe—and I am sure that all members in this House will agree—that every child in this country has a right to a quality education, regardless of where they live. Unfortunately, right now, this is simply not the case for first nations students living on reserve in Canada. [ English ] First nations youth represent the fastest growing segment of our population, yet the reality is that graduation rates continue to be significantly lower for first nations students on reserve, compared to other Canadians. It is 38% versus 87% in 2011.

In 2012, 72% of first nations members living off reserve who had completed a high school degree had a job, compared to 47% without a high school diploma. The unemployment rate for Canadians aged 25 to 29 without a high school diploma, the majority of which are first nations, is almost double that of high school graduates, at 16.4% compared to 8.8%. It is clear, and our government firmly believes, that the current situation is neither acceptable nor sustainable. That is why we have made reforming first nations education a priority. We believe that the time to act is now. Do not just take it from us.

This is a goal we share with first nations parents, teachers, students and communities across the country who have been calling for years for greater control of first nations education. In fact, they have been calling for this for four decades now. The National Indian Brotherhood, as it was then known, and now known as the Assembly of First Nations, released its landmark paper in 1972, entitled “Indian Control of Indian Education”. It has itself directly informed the development of this legislation.

More recent, the call for first nations education legislation has been repeated in years of studies, audits and reports, including: the 2011 June Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada; the Standing Committee Aboriginal Peoples in the Senate 2011 report, entitled “From Crisis to Hope”; and the 2012 report of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for Students on Reserve, “Nurturing the Learning Spirit of First Nation Students”. Each of these reports exposed the lack of a system for first nations K-12 education.

Everywhere in our country, in every province and territory, there is education legislation in place to ensure that students have access to equal education, but this does not exist on first nations reserves. (1535) [ Translation ] Each of these reports recommended the development of a legislative framework supported by stable and predictable funding. I am proud to stand before this House today to say that this proposed legislation, for the first time in our country’s history, will put in place a comprehensive education system for first nations elementary and secondary education on reserve.

I am pleased that, like us, the Assembly of First Nations has placed the needs of children first and confirmed that this bill is a constructive and necessary step forward. However, getting to this point was not an easy road. Our government launched formal intensive consultations with first nations across the country in December 2012.

That work was spearheaded by my colleague, who is now our whip. [ English ] The input received from the extensive and intensive consultations that were held with hundreds of first nations leaders, educators, and parents across the country guided the development of the draft legislative proposal that was shared last fall with first nations leaders and made public for further input from all interested parties. That document was a springboard for much more discussion and debate. We listened.

In November 2013, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations sent me an open letter that identified, according to him, five conditions for success for education on reserve. These conditions were subsequently endorsed by consensus in a resolution by the Chiefs-in-Assembly at their December 2013 gathering here in Gatineau.

Specifically, the resolution directed the national chief, national executive of the first nations, and first nations to take all necessary steps to press Canada to respond to the conditions required to achieve success for first nations children, including respect and recognition of inherent rights and title, treaty rights, and first nations control of first nations jurisdiction. Second, it called for a statutory guarantee of funding. Third, the first nations education system would be enabled, supported, and funded to design and implement languages and cultures programming.

Fourth, it called for mutual accountability, including recognition of the principle of first nations control and supports without unilateral federal oversight. Finally, it called for ongoing meaningful dialogue with first nations on education and co-development of regulations.

Following the special chiefs assembly, I responded with my own open letter where I reaffirmed our government's strong commitment to working with the Assembly of First Nations and first nations leaders to stand together to create a better education system for first nations students and address each of these five conditions in the legislation. That is exactly what we did.

The way forward was subsequently announced by the Prime Minister and the national chief this past February at Kainai High School in Standoff, Alberta and included an historic agreement to proceed with the final drafting and introduction of the first nations control of first nations education act that embodies the five conditions for success identified by the Assembly of First Nations. In addition, the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented financial commitment of over $1.9 billion in new, incremental funding to support the legislation through three different streams.

(1540) One stream is core statutory funding, including funding for language and culture; the second stream is transition funding to support implementation of the new legislative framework; and the third stream is funding for long-term investment in on-reserve school infrastructure. The first stream includes core funding in the amount of $1.252 billion over three years beginning in 2016-17 on top of the existing funding of approximately $1.55 billion and all of this with an annual escalator of 4.5%.

This core funding mechanism would replace the current mix of seven different programs, each with their own reporting requirements, and will move to a single formula-based core fund providing first nations with access to the stable and predictable funding supports that they have been asking for. The 4.5% escalator is important because it replaces the much maligned 2% funding cap on education put in place by the former Liberal government under former finance minister Paul Martin in 1996.

The second stream, the education enhancement fund, would allow first nations to move quickly to become early adopters of the new system and structures set out in the bill. It would also promote partnerships, build capacity, and encourage innovation in education practices in the longer term. This fund would provide $160 million over four years beginning in 2015-16. Finally, the third stream provides an additional $500 million for school infrastructure over seven years beginning in 2015-16 when budget 2012 investments end.

This funding would support the construction of new schools and major innovations to existing schools and help gain efficiencies in the way projects are designed, procured, financed, and constructed. (1545) [ Translation ] On April 10, 2014, I was pleased to introduce this legislation in this House. I am proud to report that Bill C-33 not only responds to, but enshrines in law every single one of the five conditions for success that were endorsed by first nations at the special assembly.

First, at the heart of the legislation before us is the recognition that first nations are best placed to know what their children need, and it puts control of first nations education back in the hands of first nations leaders, parents and educators—where it rightfully belongs. As the Prime Minister stated in February at Stand Off, the legislation will end Ottawa’s unilateral authority over first nations education, while requiring first nations communities and parents to assume responsibility and accountability for the education their children receive.

Specifically, Bill C-33 legally enables first nations control of first nations education in several specific ways. First nations will choose their governance system from a number of options to manage their own schools. First nations will develop their own curriculum. Ottawa will not impose any of the curriculum; first nations will develop it themselves. First nations will choose how they will incorporate language and culture into their curriculum. They will choose their own education inspectors, control the hiring and firing of teachers and determine how their students will be assessed.

First nations will determine how the school calendar will be structured to meet a set number of days. All of that is designed to give them control over their education. [ English ] I have heard criticism from certain people who allege that this bill would actually give the minister more power and more control over first nations education. That could not be further from the truth. Bill C-33 gives the minister less power and it is less intrusive than comparable provincial legislation in the country.

The bill simply demands that first nations schools meet five core standards, including access to education, minimum instruction days, the need for certified teachers, recognized degrees or diplomas, and the ability to transition with provincial systems. These are the five core standards that the act requires be adhered to, but for all other aspects of education, they are free to design it the way they wish. All other standards will be defined by first nations. In fact, the legislation reduces the role of the minister in comparison to the current powers afforded to the minister.

That was to deal with the unilateral oversight of the federal government. The bill would also create a joint council of education professionals. The joint council would provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and to first nations on the implementation of the act. It would also serve as a strong mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the minister to first nations.

The creation of this council, coupled with the legislated and funding supports for first nations education authorities, would dramatically reduce the involvement of the minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the administration of education on reserves. It would also help develop regulations and be obliged by law to review the act in five years.

In addition, as I outlined earlier, the proposed legislation would put in place the mechanism required to provide first nations with stable, predictable, and sustainable funding, which includes a statutory funding regime that accounts for language and culture programming. In fact, clauses 43(2) and (3) exceed the second condition set out by the AFN chiefs by not only setting a statutory guarantee of funding but by taking the unprecedented step of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support comparable service delivery to that offered in the provincial system.

We go further than what was proposed as a condition for success. As for language and culture programming, as I stated in my letter of April 15 to all first nations across the country, Bill C-33 ensures in law the incorporation of first nations language and culture programming in the education curriculum, including the option of immersion in a first nations language in a manner that ensures transferability of students between education systems and allows for students to obtain a recognized diploma.

Clearly, this is a giant step forward for first nations students, and follows years of dialogue and consultations with first nations all over the country and the Assembly of First Nations who identified the need for a better education system for first nations children. Just last week, the Assembly of First Nations published an analysis of the bill that states: Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step supportive of the goals expressed by First Nations for control, respect for Treaty and Aboriginal rights, recognition of language and culture and a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding.

(1550) That is the analysis and the result of the analysis of the Assembly of First Nations. [ Translation ] Let me be clear: the partnership does not end with introduction. As I made clear on April 10, I have extended an invitation to the AFN to work on a political protocol to establish exactly how the members of the joint council would be chosen with meaningful input from first nations and how the joint council would then work with first nations to develop the act's regulations.

Obviously, there is a great deal of work ahead to have regulations in place by the 2016-17 school year and for statutory funding to flow. In order to do this, we all have to continue to work together. [ English ] In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to put partisan politics aside and do what is clearly in the best interests of first nations children and youth across Canada. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in his speech the minister referred to the five conditions.

I want to specifically make reference to the one on meaningful dialogue, which says: Ensures a meaningfully support process to address these conditions through a commitment to working together through co-development, fully reflective of First Nations rights and jurisdiction. It goes on to say that Canada must commit to direct dialogue. I know that there was a letter sent on April 11 to the minister and to the Prime Minister from Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Part of the basis for the letter is that the trust is broken, and that is not a partisan remark.

This is a trust that has been broken over a number of years. What Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron asked for was confirmation that the new legislation will ensure first nations jurisdiction over education. The letter quotes Vice-Chief Cameron: “We asked the federal government to make a commitment and to confirm in writing, by signing a confirmation letter, that First Nations will have jurisdiction and control over our education systems, and that First Nations will have the authority to design education systems that reflect the Inherent and Treaty Right to Education”, says Vice Chief Cameron.

Given the fact that the minister seems convinced that this is going to give first nations control over first nations education and that he says he honours that commitment to dialogue and a joint process, will he commit to signing that letter as a gesture of good faith that the government will fulfill those conditions?

(1555) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that if people care to look at the bill before the House, Bill C-33 , they will find it is clearly stated not only in the

preamble but in

section 4 that: For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The question by the hon. member is about jurisdiction. There is a following

section clearly stating that: ...a First Nation that has the power to make laws with respect to elementary and secondary education under

an Act of Parliament or an agreement relating to self-government that is given effect by

an Act of Parliament... is not subjected to this act. Therefore, with regard to the power to make laws in regard to education, there is, as the member knows, another process allowing first nations to self-govern and to attain self-government, and that process remains. In the meantime, if one cares to look at the bill, it will be seen as an important step allowing first nations to get to that level of self-government where they can then have full jurisdiction over education. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, when we talk about education as an issue, often we equate it with opportunities.

The minister made reference to the issue of financing. I used to be a critic for education in the Province of Manitoba. A great number of challenges face educators and student bodies, including the issues of curricula and so forth, but one of the greatest challenges is making sure that the resources necessary to provide quality of education are second to no other in terms of performance.

A big challenge has been to try to get the government to recognize that the financial resources need to follow to support an educational infrastructure that would benefit our children and to enable the leadership within the first nations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, to ensure a quality educational product. In other words, Ottawa needs to pony up with some financial resources. I am wondering if the minister can add further comment as to what he envisions in terms of the financial support that would ultimately follow legislation. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member raises an important point. He will remember that throughout the debate and throughout the consultation process, we were hearing from first nations, from teachers, from parents, from stakeholders, and from members of academia. The Auditor General had been clear in her 2011 report that funding had to accompany reform. We have always indicated as a government that investment would not replace reform, but that funding would accompany reform. That is exactly what we are doing here. I want to point something out to the hon. member.

He will remember that when the Chiefs-in-Assembly got together here in the capital region in December and outlined those five conditions necessary for success, they said that there had to be a statutory guarantee of funding. Bill C-33 indeed includes extensive and unprecedented statutory funding obligations on the part of the minister.

In fact, subclauses 43(2) and 43(3) exceed the second condition set out by the AFN by not only setting a statutory guarantee of funding but by also taking the unprecedented step of legally requiring that federal funding be sufficient to support service delivery comparable to that offered in the provincial system. That is important, because we wanted to make sure that the quality of education that a first nation student gets on reserve in any part of a province is no different from what the non-aboriginal gets in the same region. That guarantee is in the bill now.

(1600) Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the minister outlined a bit of the unprecedented level of consultation and collaboration with first nations that came with the development of the bill. A draft piece of legislation was discussed last fall, and it was after that draft that we saw the letter from the national chief and the resolution of the Chiefs-in-Assembly.

I am wondering if the minister can outline for the House some of the differences between the first nations control of first nations education act and that earlier draft. Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and pertinent question. Indeed, we had circulated a draft of what the bill could be, but after the first nations, through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, passed the resolution outlining those five conditions, we had to go back to the table and redo our work.

To ensure that the legislation addresses the issues raised by the Assembly of First Nations through the Chiefs-in-Assembly, the following changes are included in the bill. First, there is the recognition of the ability and responsibility of first nations to manage their education system. That is now in the bill. On the question of unilateral oversight of the federal government, the bill proposes the creation of a joint council of education professionals to provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and first nations on the implementation and oversight of the bill.

Additionally, the mandate of the joint council would also be to review the act after five years. In the bill is a commitment to legislate adequate, stable, predictable, and sustainable funding, taking into account the inclusion of language and culture. That is now in the bill, in

section 43. There would also be support for the incorporation of language and culture into the curriculum. Again, that is clear in the bill. The bill says that the funding to be provided by the minister must include support for language and culture in the curriculum. That is in the bill. Finally, the bill includes the collaborative development of the act's regulation. That would be done through the joint council and the first nations.

As I indicated, I have offered the AFN the opportunity to conclude a political protocol whereby we can work out the details of how we could best create this joint council to ensure first nations have input in the development of the regulation. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to take a minute to acknowledge the tragedy that took place today in Nanaimo, where people lost their lives and were shot at the Western Forest Products mill.

My condolences on behalf of New Democrats, and I am sure all members of this House, go out to family and friends and to the community, and to the first responders who had to deal with the situation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-33 ,

an act to establish a framework to enable first nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts. I would like to start by situating the importance of education, both to first nations communities and to this country.

I know many first nations community members and leaders have said to me that, of course, they want quality, fair, comparable education for their children; that they want to deliver services that are accountable; and they want their children to succeed, so they can become part of the workforce of the future in Canada. There is no question that, for all sides of the House and for first nations, our goal collectively is to ensure that first nations children have the same right to education that all other children in this country have.

In that context, I want to refer briefly to the rights of the child, because it is important to put this in the context of rights. Under

article 28, regarding the right to education, all children have the right to a primary education, which should be free. Under

article 29, children's education should develop each child's personality, talents, and abilities to the fullest. It should encourage children to respect others' human rights and their own and other cultures'. Education should aim to develop respect for the values and cultures of their parents. Another important rights document is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Article 14 states: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination. 3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.

Article 18 says: Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. Those two articles are very relevant to the bill before this House today. I know the minister referenced some of these documents. However, I want to turn to a couple of documents.

Of course, first nations education has been on the books for discussion for many years, going back to the 1972 paper on Indian control of Indian education. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples talked about the importance of education and first nations control of education. Then, in the Auditor General's report in 2011, the Auditor General laid out some criteria for moving an education system forward because, as the Auditor General pointed out, success certainly was not being achieved.

The Auditor General said: To provide true comparability, it would be important to include a clear statement of comparability in program objectives and define comparability on a program-by-program basis. Roles and responsibilities would also need to be specified, as would the level of services required for comparability. In addition, the costs of achieving comparability would have to be determined and programs would have to be adequately funded.

Part of the talk about the legislative base said: A legislative base for programs specifies respective roles and responsibilities, eligibility, and other program elements. It constitutes an unambiguous commitment by government to deliver those services. That one in particular is important, because what we see in the piece of legislation that is before us is that there is a lot about defining the roles for first nations, but there is very little about defining the roles for government, and that is absolutely a piece that must be part of any legislative agenda. We must be able to hold the government to account for its successes, but also for its failures.

(1605) Finally, the Auditor General stated: We noted that INAC— It was then called INAC. —used a funding formula dating back to the 1980s and lacked information that would enable it to compare costs with those of providing comparable education services.... For any of us who have been dealing with this file for a number of years, when we met with the department to talk about comparable services, we have always been told that it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Although this legislation talks about comparable services, there really is no mechanism to talk about what those comparable services are, and I am going to cover that a little more. I also want to touch on Justice Berger's report. He did a report in Nunavut back in 2005-06. I want to talk about this because of the language element, and although it says “Nunavut”, it is relevant to the piece before us. It states: There are essentially two methods of effectively producing bilingual graduates in Nunavut.

One model is that which is common in many European countries, in which students are taught in both languages, typically the standard languages of European nation-states, from the first year to the last. The second model, perhaps more familiar to Canadians, is the immersion model.... Either model appears to be capable of producing the desired results: students who are not only bilingual but also biliterate—able to read and write at an acceptable level in either language.

The difficulty is in the detail: both require a high level of commitment to both languages, together with the resources—skilled teachers, appropriate curriculum materials, and methods for assessment of student progress—in both as well. The reason I raise that is that much is being made of the fact that language is included in this legislation, and yet nobody has the comfort level that the kinds of resources that are required to make sure that happens are actually going to be available. I want to turn to a few more points before I go into some of the concerns about the particular piece of legislation.

In a briefing document prepared by the Library of Parliament for members, it indicated that “Indian control” has often meant little more than local administration of federal education programs and policies, and many people who are opposed to this legislation maintain that the legislation before us is little more than administrative in nature. It is not truly first nations control of first nations education; it is just a document that outlines what kind of administrative responsibilities first nations will have.

Further on, it speaks of transferring only limited administrative control of education to first nations but not the necessary resources that allow for full implementation of a first nations-controlled education system. In 1995, the federal government formally recognized the inherent right of aboriginal self-government as an existing right under

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Under the inherent right of self-government policy, federal recognition of that right is based on the view that aboriginal peoples in Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages, and institutions. Importantly, the policy identified education as a matter falling within the scope of self-government negotiations.

It goes on to talk about two very specific agreements, the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act and the Mi'kmaq Education Act. Of course, there are successes with the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act and the Mi'kmaq Education Act and yet, under this piece of legislation before us, those two agreements, after 2017, would be forced under this piece of legislation. There are grave concerns, because a significant amount of work has already been done in those areas and successes are being achieved.

One of the other documents that has been referenced is “Nurturing the Learning Spirit of First Nation Students”. That particular document laid out a process for making sure we move forward on a successful piece of legislation.

The document said: A strong First Nation Education System would be built upon a solid foundation that encompasses the following: The co-creation of legislation in the form of a First Nation Education Act that outlines responsibilities for each partner— There is that “each partner” again, both the government and first nations in the system. —and recognizes and protects the First Nation child’s right to their culture, language and identity, a quality education, funding of the system, and First Nation control of First Nation education Statutory funding that is needs-based, predictable, sustainable and