8691 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 130 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 23, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 23, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 130 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 130 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 130 (Version officielle) 147 130 23 10 2014 2014/10/23 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. (1005) [ Translation ] Prayer The Speaker : Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. [ English ] Guide us in our deliberations as members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions.

Amen. We will now have a moment of silence for private reflection and meditation. [ A moment of silence observed ] [ Members sang the national anthem ]

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)(

b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 62 petitions.

Nathan Cirillo The Speaker : I understand there have been consultations among the parties and there is agreement to hold a moment of silence at this time in memory of Nathan Cirillo. [ A moment of silence observed ]

[ Translation ] Events of October 22, 2014, in Ottawa Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues. I would like to begin today by recognizing and thanking the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Papineau for their kind remarks and words of encouragement yesterday evening. In our system, in our country, we are opponents but we are never enemies.

We are Canadians, one and all. [ English ] We may sit across the aisle from one another, but when faced with attacks on the country we all love and the things we all stand for, I know we will always stand together. (1010) [ Translation ] Today more than ever before, I am quite pleased to see all of my colleagues from all parties in good health and good form. [ English ] Let me, Mr. Speaker, through you, provide a little bit of advice to my colleagues.

I think my position and growing number of grey hairs entitles me to do this once in a while, and that is to say we all here are engaged in extremely demanding and stressful jobs, but the stress that many of you faced yesterday was really beyond and above anything that any of us are really expecting to face. While we resume our duties, and I will talk about that in a moment, I would encourage everybody here to take care of their health.

Be sure that you find some time to relax in the next little while and also, because we are not all in perfect health, if any of you are experiencing any undue physical stress as a result of what occurred yesterday, please take the time to see a physician and get that checked out. I also want to say we heard a lot of feedback from Canadians yesterday.

We are all used to the feedback we get very regularly from Canadians, much of it in the form of brickbats and some of it deserved, but in this case I think we all experienced the tremendous outpouring of warmth, affection, and good wishes from people across country, and we all thank them for this. I also want to convey all the good wishes I heard personally, not just from Canadians but from our friends outside the country. I heard from President Obama, from Prime Minister Abbott, from Prime Minister Netanyahu, and through a statement, from Prime Minister Cameron.

We have heard these expressions from across the world. I think we were all, as Canadians, touched by the wonderful gesture shown last night at the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey game. So thanks to our friends in the United States and around the world for their expressions of concern. Of course, we know all too well that this is not a happy day for everybody.

In particular, it is a terribly sad day for all of the family, loved ones, friends, and colleagues of both Nathan Cirillo and Patrice Vincent. [ Translation ] We have seen photos of these lovely men. [ English ] We have all seen the pictures of these beautiful guys, as Don Cherry would say, and our hearts really are with all of them. We are so fortunate to have people like this. In the past couple of decades, we see across the world increasing places where the planet is descending into savagery, and there are people who, every day of their lives, stand on guard for this country and for all of us.

We obviously want to convey our gratitude to these two servicemen and their families, but also to all the people who undertake this extremely dangerous work on behalf of our country.

I spoke of the state of much of the world, and I think for all of us who are blessed to live in a country like this, it is hard to appreciate, understand, or fathom how we can have people who are involved in a movement that so wants violence, who so despise modernity, who so hate progress that they can desire to drive out medical workers from their community, harm them; that they can enslave women, torture children; that they can kill, want to kill anyone who looks or thinks differently from them. It is in a sense beyond our comprehension, but it is very real.

In this struggle in which we are engaged, in which not only our finest values must be pushed to work, so must be and will be the highest unity and resolve. They are our ultimate and indispensable weapons, and that is what these people will face. (1015) [ Translation ] With regard to the events of yesterday and in recent days, a number of questions remain and will all be answered over the course of the police security investigations. However, I can tell the House this today: the objective of both of those attacks was to spread fear and panic in our country and to interrupt the business of government.

Well, honourable members, as I said yesterday, Canadians will never be intimidated. [ English ] We will not be intimidated. We will be vigilant, but we will not run scared. We will be prudent, but we will not panic. As for the business of government, well, we are here, in our seats, in our chamber, in the very heart of our democracy, and our work goes on. [ Translation ] In all its diversity of peoples and opinions, this House personifies the spirit of Canada. [ English ] Canada will never yield to terrorism, and neither will this House of Commons—we carry on.

We will attend to the country's affairs and we will be faithful to the trust that people have placed in us. As I said earlier, and I have been saying for a long time, we live in a dangerous world. Terrorism has been here with us for a while, and dangerously close on a number of occasions. For example, I draw members' attention back to incidents such as the Toronto 18 and the VIA Rail conspiracy in 2013, and I could point to a number of others, as well as many that most will never know about.

For that reason, and with the belief that security in Canada is the government's primary responsibility, we have, over the years, passed such legislation as the Combating Terrorism Act and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to better protect Canadians and secure our institutions. Last week, our government proposed amendments to the legislation under which the Canadian Security Intelligence Service operates. As members know, in recent weeks, I have been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention, and arrest. They need to be much strengthened.

I assure members that work, which is already under way, will be expedited. In conclusion, we are all aware and deeply troubled that both of this week's terrorist attacks were carried out by Canadian citizens, by young men born and raised in this peaceful country. (1020) [ Translation ] I share this concern, and I have to ask myself what sort of feeble-mindedness could lead a person to reject a nationality that so many people in so many countries would do anything to earn for their children. [ English ] However, that is a question for another day.

For now, make no mistake: even as the brave men and women of our armed forces are taking this fight to the terrorists on their own territory, we are equally resolved to fight it here. We live in dangerous times, yes, but the mission of our country and the work of this Parliament goes on, and so does the work throughout this city. Let me just say one final word in recognizing all the heroes of yesterday. First, I know so many. I could certainly speak personally of my staff at 24 Sussex: M. Roger Charbonneau and the chefs, Tim and Tina, who were up all night.

However, I know people who were working day and night to make things as easy as possible for all of us across the country and here in Ottawa, officials who were busy at work trying to respond to the situation, first responders and citizens who put themselves in harm's way when this incident began to unfold. However, in conclusion, I acknowledge most particularly the men and women in our security services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Armed Forces, the City of Ottawa Police.

Most particularly of course, I would be very remiss if I did not acknowledge specifically the work of the security forces here on Parliament Hill and the great work of our Sergeant-at-Arms. [ Translation ] Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for Catherine and me to be here today, and for me to rise in this House. Yesterday, a crazed gunman came here intending to silence us, to silence the values that our country represents: peace, tolerance and diversity.

He failed. [ English ] Yesterday's cowardly act was meant to shake this great city of Ottawa and indeed the entire country, but it has only hardened our resolve. It has only strengthened our commitment to each other and to a peaceful world. Let us not become more suspicious of our neighbours. Let us not be driven by fear because in Canada love always triumphs over hate. For the family of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, may they please know that the thoughts and prayers of every single member of this House and of every single Canadian are with them today.

Corporal Cirillo was a young man, just 24, with a beautiful son and a bright future ahead of him. Friends said he always had a smile on his face. That smile will be remembered by a nation. (1025) [ Translation ] I would also like to salute my friend, Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers. On behalf of us all, I would ask him to convey our sincere thanks and appreciation to each and every member of his team here on the Hill, the police forces and the Canadian Armed Forces. We do not yet know all of the names of yesterday's heroes, but I can say that we all witnessed heroic actions.

We saw such actions right in our room: a member of Mr. Vickers' team threw himself against the door when the gunman was right outside and told us to get down even as he himself was standing in front of the door. The courage and professionalism they showed in the face of such brutality embody the best of what it means to be Canadian. I thank our Canadian Armed Forces. This week, they experienced two unspeakable tragedies. Every day, our armed forces defend Canadian values, and today all Canadians stand united with them. Yesterday we awoke in a land of love, diversity and peace, and today that has not changed.

Here in this place, throughout Ottawa and across the country, we will conduct the nation's business as normally as possible. As the Prime Minister said, our presence here today is proof of that. We will hold our loved ones a little bit closer, but we will not allow hatred and violence to change who we are.

As we all know, events take place here that exemplify Canada's openness and freedom. [ English ] One of my favourite examples of how this parliamentary area in and of itself becomes a symbol of the freedom and openness of this great country of ours, Canada, is that every Wednesday at noon during good weather we can see hundreds of people, multi-coloured, doing yoga on the front lawn. It is a symbol of openness and freedom. The person who came here yesterday with violence on his mind and in his gestures did not win. We cannot allow that openness and freedom to be rolled back either.

We have to continue to defend both. Today I stand here on behalf of all New Democrats and Canadians. We say that there is great solidarity here in the House and across the country. There is solidarity with the Prime Minister . These acts were driven by hatred, but also designed to drive us to hate others. That is not going to happen. We will stand up and we will stand together. We will preserve. We will persevere. We will prevail. That is what Canadians have always done together. That is what we do best together. (1030) [ Translation ] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On we go, together. Mr.

Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition for their strong, passionate remarks. [ English ] Yesterday's events were a shared national tragedy. It is fitting that we have come together in this place immediately to let the world know that Canada's values are strong, our institutions are resilient, and our people are united. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims of yesterday's tragic events.

Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered while guarding our nation's sacred memorial to his own fallen comrades. He was unarmed. [ Translation ] Corporal Cirillo was a hero serving our country. He was also a father. Today we must not forget that a little boy has lost his father, suddenly and tragically. Let us all commit to honouring his memory. Corporal Cirillo, much like Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent earlier this week, was killed in cold blood.

Both of these attacks were cowardly and unforgivable [ English ] Should any other perpetrators or co-conspirators exist, they should be punished with the full force of our laws. I also extend my deep and sincere gratitude on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to the brave women and men who selflessly and courageously came to our aid yesterday. Through them and their actions, we are reminded of the professionalism and dedication so often exhibited by those who protect us. I thank them. [ Translation ] We especially want to thank our Sergeant-at-Arms.

His heroic deeds have been widely praised, and rightly so. [ English ] I say this through you, Mr. Speaker. Kevin, without your courage a terrible situation would have become much worse. We are in your debt. Canadians are proud of you and they thank you. Yesterday's attack on both our military and our most cherished democratic symbols was designed to frighten us. It was meant to embed within our minds an image of terror. It was meant to make us think differently about our surroundings and fellow citizens. [ Translation ] This act was meant to make us forget who we are.

Instead, we must always remember. (1035) [ English ] We are a proud democracy, a welcoming and peaceful nation. We are a country of open arms, open minds, and open hearts. We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that, by anybody. These are instead the very values and ideals upon which we must rely in the days ahead. It is in our dedication to these principles that we can set an example to the world. [ Translation ] These principles are the pillars on which the enduring foundations of our society have been built.

A continued belief in these principles will guide us correctly into the future. [ English ] Let us also remember what we are up against. The individuals who committed these awful acts are not larger than life. They are not giants. They are certainly not martyrs. That is how they would like us to see them, but it is not what they are. Seeing them that way lets the fear they try to perpetuate grow. [ Translation ] Seeing them that way gives them credibility, when they do not deserve any. They are criminals, and criminals will not dictate how we act as a nation, how we govern ourselves, or how we treat each other.

They will not dictate our values. [ English ] They will not make the rules about this land that we share, and they will not get to change us. We are aware of the threats we face as a nation. We know, as we have long known, that we are not immune, nor can we guard totally against danger in the future. What we can do is to not let these threats define us. We need answers as to how and why this happened.

They will be vital in preventing and helping to prevent any future attacks. [ Translation ] To our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community, Canadians know that the acts committed yesterday are criminal and not religious. They are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual co-operation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. Our Canadian values can be put to the test, but we must not forget how strong they are.

We will walk forward together, not apart. [ English ] Those who carried out these attacks wanted to leave us with an image of fear and chaos. Let us remember one of strength and of hope. The image in our collective minds and shared in our hearts is one of Canadians helping and protecting Canadians, of passersby trying to save the life of a young man who gave his service to his country. [ Translation ] That is who we truly are. That is who we will continue to be.

(1040) Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, as dean of the House and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would also like to pay tribute to the dedication and courage demonstrated by the police officers, the members of the military, the security team and all the staff of the House, all the parties, as well as our dedicated Sergeant-at-Arms. The Speaker : Does the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour have the unanimous consent of the House to speak? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Louis Plamondon : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues.

Our thoughts, of course, are with the family of Corporal Cirillo, who unfortunately passed away. We extend our sincere condolences to his family. Although it is difficult for us to return to work today, we must never forget that, yes, we represent the people, but we also represent democracy. We have a duty to protect this democracy and to pursue our fight so that it continues to exist and to grow. Today, more than ever, we must continue to debate openly and transparently here in Parliament.

However, we also need to show solidarity in how we respond to terrorism, how we shape our international policy, what we do with our armed forces and how we implement security measures. We believe in democracy and we remain vigilant. Let us act responsibly and not allow panic to prevail over good judgment. The Speaker : Does the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands have the unanimous consent of the House to speak? Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to speak on this very serious and grave day.

We had a horrible day yesterday. I especially want to thank the Prime Minister for his words today, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party. We are together now and always. [ English ] It is rare in the House to be united as we are now. We experience shared grief occasionally, such as the day we gathered to honour our colleague Jim Flaherty, but this day we have shared something far different. All of us in different ways yesterday experienced the fear of being locked down somewhere, not knowing quite what was going on.

All of us, and some of my colleagues far more than I, experienced the real terror that comes from thinking someone with a gun is on the other side of a door and they are at risk. I know these moments are important and we should underline that there is no partisanship in the House when we are all together. In the same way, I guess that there are no atheists in fox holes, there are no political party leaders when we share a common experience of such basic fear and concern for our loved ones and for our well-being. All of us together are family. We need to feel it and say it more often.

We are together in this place and our constituents need to know. We are not at war with each other, as the Prime Minister said. Together, we work together for our country. Whatever our views are about the future of the country, whatever course we want the country to take, at a very basic level we are nothing more than human beings who at a very fundamental level care for each other. All of the people in this place are my colleagues. My colleagues must know how much I care for all of them and love them, and this is something our constituents need to know.

I cannot add anything to the eloquence of what was said, but it does need to be said again. This country lost two wonderful men this week through cold-blooded murder. [ Translation ] I am talking about the cold-blooded murders of Nathan Cirillo and Patrice Vincent. (1045) [ English ] These are crimes that cut to the heart of all of us. We get to know something of their lives, and we get to realize with every passing day and revealed detail of their personal lives how much we all lose as a nation when two such fine men are so senselessly and brutally killed.

We know, as I think we always knew, that our Sergeant-at-Arms is a consummate professional. He is more than a ceremonial figure. The finest thing that we could do for him right now would be to let him leave this place and go fly-fishing on the Miramichi. In closing, I want to wish all of my colleagues and all Canadians well. I pray for one thing: that we hang on to the sense of a common, shared purpose, that we remain calm, and that we wait for answers from the police before we make any assumptions about motivations, connections or the extent of what we face.

If I were a betting person, and it is good for my bank account that I am not, I would put money on these being the acts of isolated, disturbed and deeply troubled men who were drawn to something crazy. I do not believe that it was a vast network or that the country is more at risk today than it was last week. However, that is my opinion. I can be wrong. I have been wrong before and I may be wrong again. I am undoubtedly going to be wrong again, but what I would like to suggest is that we wait for answers from the police before we make assumptions and that we speak calmly, truthfully and openly to all Canadians.

Let us be the place that exemplifies the words of our founding documents. Let us exemplify peace, order and good government. [ Translation ] The Speaker : Does the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia have the same unanimous consent to answer? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Jean-François Fortin (Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, FD) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak today in this chamber where democracy is upheld.

I would like to dedicate my opening words to the memory of Nathan Frank Cirillo, who gave his life simply for representing values that Quebeckers and Canadians share, those of democracy, safety, respect and honour. I would like to express my condolences to his family and loved ones, as well as to all those who are committed to defending our ideals of peace, safety and democracy.

I would also like to commend the courage of the men and women who, from the very moment this horrible tragedy began to unfold, took action to protect the individuals and elected officials who were on Parliament Hill and in the adjacent buildings. More specifically, I would like to recognize the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House for his heroic action. I thank him and I thank everyone who risked his or her life dealing with a killer who was prepared to do anything to take the lives of innocent people and who was specifically targeting people in uniform.

Right now, we still do not have all of the information about the investigation and we still do not know what led two men to attack soldiers and a symbol as powerful as Parliament. What they did can only be described as madness. A desire to instill fear by bringing such abject violence into the heart of institutions that guarantee freedom, democracy and respect for the law is about as low as you can get. I cannot condemn this senseless attack strongly enough.

While it may be too early today to take stock of the tragic events of October 22 and think about what measures to take, it is not too early to state loud and clear that we believe in peace, liberty and democracy and that we will not give in to threats or terror. I see that we are all prepared to deal with this situation together, above and beyond our political allegiances. Let us focus on our strengths. Let us focus on democracy. The Speaker : Does the hon. member for Ahuntsic have the unanimous consent of the House to speak? Some hon. members: Agreed.

(1050) Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes. “ One may not reach the dawn save by the path of the night.” Those are the words of poet Kahlil Gibran. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo were murdered, and let us not forget that a third soldier was wounded. They embody one of our institutions dedicated to defending our freedom and democracy. Our thoughts are with their families. They will not be forgotten.

Our eternal gratitude also goes out to the women and men who kept everyone in the House of Commons safe. A man tasked with providing that security told me one day that his role was to protect us all even at the risk of his own life. Yesterday, Mr. Vickers, you and your team were true to their word. I thank them. Evil is striking our country and its vulnerable youth, whose minds are being poisoned daily by jihadist ideologues who blithely prey on our young people on the Internet. This type of terrorism assails the conscience of vulnerable youth that have lost their way.

We must combat this with love and prevention and by defending the right to freedom, democracy, and individual rights. We must not lose our way and attack individual freedoms out of fear and turning inward. Today, I see that we can rise above our challenges when we want to. Let us all work together with this same solidarity and love that I am feeling in the House today. Let us work together to help these young people resist the pull of these groups, to help our youth and our country.

[ English ] Committees of the House Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill S-213,

an act respecting Lincoln Alexander Day . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Madawaska—Restigouche, CPC) Bill S-6. First reading moved that Bill S-6,

an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act , be read the first time. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Business of the House Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you shall find unanimous consent for the following: Motion That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, the House shall be deemed to have sat on Wednesday, October 22, 2014, and that any recorded division deferred to that day be further deferred to Wednesday, October 29, 2014.

(1055) The Speaker : Does the government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Iraq Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by hundreds of Edmontonians who are concerned about the fate of Christians in Iraq and are particularly concerned about the serious and deteriorating situation in northern Iraq. The petitioners call upon the government to do a number of things, among which are to help stop this tragedy, help preserve the culture of antiquity in its homeland, and take immediate action against ISIS and the violence in Iraq.

Employment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Davenport and the great city of Toronto on a number of different issues. About 50% of all workers in Toronto cannot access permanent full-time jobs. They do not have access to pension benefits or job security. The many people who have signed this petition call upon the government to support a national urban worker strategy.

Employment Insurance Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition calling on the government to look at ways to extend employment insurance to the self-employed while maintaining the strength and surety of the employment insurance system today.

The Environment Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, a number of residents in my community are still very concerned about the process of the Line 9 pipeline. The petitioners want the government to reverse its decision on the Line 9 pipeline on an urgent basis.

Defence of Canada Medal Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to table a petition with respect to the countless hours of service that many men and women gave to their country as they trained and prepared for an attack on Canadian soil during the Cold War era. These individuals, who served in the regular and reserve forces, police forces, emergency measures organizations, and civil organizations, worked to protect Canada from the threat posed by the countries behind the Iron Curtain.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-354 , which happens to be my private member's bill, which would create a defence of Canada medal to honour these veterans of the Cold War.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that represents thousands of Canadians. The petition sadly highlights the fact that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired driving, Families For Justice, believes that the impaired driving laws in Canada are much too lenient. The petitioners call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Kurdistan Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to introduce today. The first petition is signed by hundreds of Canadians who represent the Canadian Kurdish population and who are concerned about the events in Kurdistan and the threats to the Kurdish people there. The petitioners call upon Canada to do whatever it can to support the Kurdish people diplomatically and militarily by means of intelligence and arms.

Public Transit Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by dozens of people in Vancouver Kingsway who are calling on the government to implement a national public transit strategy. The petitioners want permanent investment to support public transit and want federal funding mechanisms established for it in our country.

Canada Post Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the Government of Canada to do whatever it can to ensure home mail delivery for all Canadians who want it, particularly the disabled and the elderly, who require direct home mail delivery.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour of presenting, on behalf of dozens of Sherbrooke residents, a petition concerning the CBC's future. A number of signatories to the petition are calling for more stable, multi-year and adequate funding for our public broadcaster, which is experiencing difficulties because of the restructuring currently taking place. They are therefore asking the government to provide stable and more predictable funding to the crown corporation, so that it can fulfill its mandate properly.

Local Economy Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by more than 200 people from my riding to support buying local, the local economy and farmers from our region. They are asking the government to establish a nationwide buy-local strategy and a local procurement policy within all federal institutions.

(1100) [ English ] 41st General Election Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from Canadians across Canada calling for an inquiry to take place into the so-called robocall scandal in the election of 2011. The petitioners note that we still do not have answers as to who coordinated and organized that attempt to reduce voter turnout.

Prostitution Mr. Jim Hillyer (Lethbridge, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition with dozens of signatures from people who are calling upon Parliament to legislate that it be a criminal offence to purchase sex or to pimp in this country.

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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 44 minutes.

Government Orders

Government Orders [ English ] Ways and Means Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2 Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures be concurred in. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea.

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

(1140) [ Translation ] (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 256) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Anderson Armstrong Aspin Baird Barlow Bateman Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Falk Fantino Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goldring Gosal Gourde Grewal Harper Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Smith Sopuck Sorenson Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Yurdiga Zimmer -- 148 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Benskin Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Brahmi Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Chan Charlton Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Foote Fortin Freeland Freeman Fry Garneau Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hsu Hughes Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Masse Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mourani Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Patry Pilon Plamondon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote Vaughan -- 121 PAIRED Nil The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I declare the motion carried. (Motion agreed to) [ English ] Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) Bill C-43. First reading moved that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures be read the first time and printed. (Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5,

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-5. Second reading Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5 . I call on all members to support the passage of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act in order to expand Canada's world-class national park system.

In light of the events of yesterday, it is fitting that the first bill in the House of Commons today is about a national park, a place of sanctity and peace that affords all Canadians an opportunity and a location to enjoy wide open spaces in Canada's great outdoors. The purpose of Bill S-5 is to establish for all time Canada's newest national park and to pass on to future generations an amazing landscape located in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories.

Not only will this area be protected in the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve but it will be available to generations of visitors to explore and to generations of aboriginal people who can continue their traditional ways of life that date back to time immemorial. This is the 44th time in the history of our country that a conscious decision has been made to protect a nationally significant Canadian landscape for all time. I hope all members of Parliament, all members in the House, will voice their support for the bill to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Our government is a global leader in the creation of new national parks in protected areas. Since 2006, our government has added an area twice the size of Vancouver Island to the network of federally protected areas. The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve will protect a representative example of the Mackenzie Mountains and wildlife, including mountain caribou, grizzly bears, moose, Dall sheep, and a host of other species, for future generations.

It has been achieved through the hard work of northerners, including the government of the Northwest Territories, the Sahtu Dene, and the Métis, in support of the goals of the national conservation plan to protect, and connect Canadians to, our natural areas, as announced by our Prime Minister . Bill S-5 will set in law the boundary of Nááts’ihch’oh by amending

Schedule 2 of the Canada National Parts Act. The boundary was selected to achieve key conservation gains, including the protection of the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River as well as habitat for caribou, grizzly bears, sheep, and moose while allowing for some development of existing mineral claims and leases for potential future mineral development. The boundaries of the proposed park reserve are the product of a broad process of collaboration and consultation. Hundreds of individuals shared views on the proposed boundaries.

Representatives of aboriginal groups, territorial governments, mining companies, and other federal departments were also consulted and they participated. The boundary will protect 70% of the South Nahanni River watershed within the Sahtu settlement area while leaving 70% of the area with high mineral potential outside the park. As a result, it will provide for conservation values and a visitor experience without blocking access to significant areas with high mineral potential. Visitors will now be able to paddle the South Nahanni River from the Moose Ponds to Nahanni National Park Reserve within the boundary.

In August 2012, the Prime Minister travelled to the Northwest Territories to join aboriginal leaders in announcing the establishment of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. Since then, at the request of the Sahtu Dene and the Métis, an area of about 20 square kilometres, extending to the south shore of O'Grady Lake, has been added to the park, in part to facilitate visitor access to the park.

With the protection of an additional 4,895 square kilometres of lands and waters in Nááts’ihch’oh, our government has effectively expanded the original boundary of Nahanni sevenfold, to the point that it and Nááts’ihch’oh are the third largest national park complex in Canada.

(1145) Globally, this is among the most significant national park expansions. In combination with Nahanni National Park Reserve, 86% of the entire South Nahanni River watershed is now protected forever. The boundary for the expanded Nahanni and the newly established Nááts’ihch’oh will include habitat that will protect up to 600 grizzly bears. This is nine times more than the number of grizzly bears protected within Banff National Park, Canada's first national park. The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been achieved with the collaboration of the Sahtu Dene and Métis.

Two years ago, the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis signed an impact benefit plan that spelled out how the Nááts’ihch’oh would be collaboratively operated and managed. The plan aims to ensure that the national park reserve provides lasting economic, cultural, and social benefits to aboriginal and northern communities and that it drives growth and prosperity without jeopardizing fragile ecosystems and ongoing traditions. Ongoing employment to operate Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve will include a combination of seasonal and full-time staff.

These employees will be hired among the Sahtu Dene and Métis in the Tulita district. This will allow for a positive economic contribution from the government to support sustainable employment for northerners. Our government has struck an important balance in this region with the dedication of almost 35,000 square kilometres of northern wilderness and wildlife habitat to national park status for all time while continuing to allow access to resources that are important to the regional and national economy.

The bill before us would continue to allow the mining industry to use several specific mineral access roads to access their existing mineral claims. The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been achieved with the support of the government of the Northwest Territories. This legislation is being passed less than a year after Canada and the Northwest Territories reached an historic devolution agreement, with the transfer of the administration and control of land and resources to the territorial government.

Once it is established, I am confident that both governments will continue to collaborate to ensure that any development on lands outside the park will not have an impact on the national park values we are seeking to protect through Bill S-5 . The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has received overwhelming support from stakeholder groups, leaders, community members, and local and regional governments in the area. All first nations and Métis who have settled or asserted claims in the area, as well as stakeholder groups, were invited to consultations.

Meetings with leaders and community members from several communities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were also conducted. Of the over 1,600 individuals who participated in the consultation process, over 96% indicated that they supported the creation of this park. Bill S-5 delivers on our government's commitment in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to protect Canada's rich natural heritage by, in part, completing the work to protect the wilderness lands of the Nááts’ihch’oh by 2015.

Plans are also progressing to dedicate two additional national parks that were also mentioned in the throne speech: a new national park on Bathurst Island in Nunavut and a new national park reserve in the Mealy Mountains of Labrador. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut , who is also the Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for Parks Canada, on her August 2014 announcement that our government has designated and protected the 20,000 square kilometre Nunavut-based national park under the Canada National Parks Act.

The minister's statement at the time is worth repeating, and equally applies to Bill S-5 . I quote: Our Government is committed to ensuring our natural heritage and rich biodiversity is protected for all Canadians today and into the future. Canada’s North is home to the world’s most spectacular scenery and pristine wilderness and I’m tremendously pleased to be announcing [the park] will be protected for future generations. This final step, that supports our Government’s National Conservation Plan, marks the completion of years of hard work and dedication of many Northerners.

(1150) In closing, Bill S-5 will protect Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve under the Canada National Park Act. When Parliament first passed this act in 1930, it included a dedication clause that still resonates today. It states: The [national parks of Canada] are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment...and [the parks] shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of the future generations. This statement of purpose will apply to Nááts’ihch’oh once Bill S-5 passes.

Over the decades, previous Parliaments have enacted legislation that has left us with the enduring legacy of unimpaired national parks, such as Jasper, Fundy, Prince Edward Island, Grasslands, and Gros Morne. We know these incredible parks are some of our most treasured places that we have visited, or hope to visit some day, so that we can expand our personal understanding of the beauty of our country. This includes one such gift, Kluane National Park, in my home riding of the Yukon Territory.

The history of the people who came to settle these areas and the connection that aboriginal and local communities have with the land in these regions are important to us. The protection of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, with its bears, caribou, Dall sheep, and trumpeter swans, is this Parliament's natural legacy gift to future generations. For generations to come, people will visit and be inspired by the lands of Nááts’ihch’oh. We trust that it will be passed on to successive generations unimpaired.

Please join me, not only in supporting Bill S-5 but in passing this new national park, for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of future generations, and for all Canadians.

(1155) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking later to indicate NDP support for this bill, but I do have a question for the member. He is probably aware that in 2013, in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on the ecological integrity of national parks, the commissioner raised some concerns about the state of repair of many national parks. I wonder if the member could comment on whether the government is prepared to commit the resources and staffing required to make sure that this park can be the best possible park. Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her question and her support for this bill. I certainly look forward to hearing her speak later today on this important topic. The member will know that in the recent budget, our government committed millions of dollars for the upkeep and infrastructure development of our national parks, not only to make them safe but to preserve them for future generations, to make them accessible and enjoyable, to generate visitors, and in turn spur revenue through those visits to our national parks.

We have made significant investments in infrastructure development to make sure that all parks across Canada are safe, accessible, and secure locations that welcome visitors to them on every day of every month of every year. I hope that the NDP will consider those investments, consider the budget implementation we are doing to engage those investments, and will find a way to support us through those budgets so that our national parks are our lasting legacies for years to come. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, it is worth noting that throughout Canada, in virtually all regions, we have a great deal of beauty in terms of our natural lands and, in northern Canada, vast amounts of land. We acknowledge how important it is that we look to where we can capitalize on the recognition of our parks. In every region, we have a high demand for not only putting into place national parks, but there are also the concerns that come with that. My colleague from the New Democratic Party made reference to the importance of resources, which is of critical importance.

I know that up north there is a great deal of concern with respect to the whole issue of water management and how that can be dealt with. Our national parks play a role in issues such as that. I wonder if the member would provide comment regarding how our national parks play a valuable role that goes beyond the preservation and promotion of nature and wilderness, and also contribute to the benefit of our communities across Canada to deal with strategies for water and other natural resources. Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr.

Speaker, each national park has a park management plan, and they look at all aspects, from wildlife protection and land-based issues to water-based issues. The member raises a good point. This park is a great example of where we are protecting water headways. The starting points, the headways of these major river systems, often require great protection. In the South Nahanni River country, part of this park will preserve headwaters of some major river systems. We have dedicated, capable, qualified staff, who work within each of these parks.

They develop very comprehensive water management plans, land use management plans, and wildlife management plans. We are very fortunate in our country to have such qualified and capable people working within our national park system, to make sure they are not operating solely as an entity within the national park but within the broader perspective of the communities that surround those parks. This is because of wildlife, transboundary water flowing in and out of national parks, and forest and ecosystems sharing the park both inside and outside of park boundaries.

It is incumbent upon the great staff who work in these national parks to know this, in order to work in a flexible nature with their partners in the surrounding communities and regions, and with their provincial or territorial counterparts. They do a great job. Our government is more than happy to support them in every way that we can. I am very much looking forward to seeing the expansion of this park, and the continued protection of our waterways, our land, and our wildlife resources.

(1200) Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my colleague from the Yukon . It is appropriate today to take the opportunity to thank him for his public service. We all know in the House of his work with the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada. I also want to thank my colleagues in the opposition who are working with us to make parks in Canada a wonderful priority. As the member for the Yukon , the member knows first-hand that one of the greatest things about our country is our great outdoors.

Our Conservative government's record is clear and unprecedented. We have protected land that is two times the size of Vancouver Island. We have created three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, two national marine conservation areas, and one historic site. Why it is so important to now establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve? Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hard-working parliamentary secretary for all of the work that he does.

He is obviously keenly aware of the significance, not only of this park but of all of the initiatives that our government has undertaken. He also has the advantage of working with the hard-working Minister of the Environment , who not only understands these issues very well but lives the issues. She was born in Nunavut, with the wild and open spaces, and she has a deep appreciation for what national parks and open spaces bring to Canadians, both from urban and rural settings. On that note, we have made expansions to this national park.

They are timely, and this is an excellent opportunity for us to build on our tremendous record. We are doing this at the exact time that we are opening national parks in large urban areas, as with the Rouge River national park. We are trying to connect Canadians as part of our national conservation plan, to restore their connection to nature, give them opportunities that they have not had in the past, and to give them spaces to explore. It is perfect for the health of our ecosystem, and our land, wildlife, and water, as some of the members opposite have touched on.

It is also important for the people of Canada and the health of Canadians. It is important for the health and well-being of future generations of Canadians, and indeed our country's identity. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, not only for his question, but for his hard work, and the Minister of the Environment as well. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned my park, which is the park that is closest to home for me, in Scarborough—Rouge River. That is the Rouge River national urban park which is about to be created.

I see a very similar pattern. The community and local people have asked for a larger park, a larger part of the naturally occurring ecosystems to be protected, and the government has suggested a smaller park. That is what happened with the Rouge park, and that is what I am learning is also happening with the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. Over 90% of the public in the area who were consulted requested that a larger land assembly be included in the park, and the final decision put forward by the government is actually the smallest possible area of land to be protected.

Especially considering that it is at the headwaters of the waterways, why is it that the government is putting forth the smallest possible land assembly for this park reserve?

(1205) Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, this is a seven-fold expansion, just shy of 5,000 additional square kilometres to the existing park. This is not insignificant. Of course, there are people who would have liked the park to be larger. However, we had over 1,600 direct consultations, and, of those, 1,600, 96%, were in support of the park plan that we laid out. We have an obligation as government to ensure that we balance all Canadians' interests in these issues, be they in the urban centre or in rural remote Canada.

There are many stakeholders with vested interests in these regions in the country, and we have struck a balance between all the user groups' interests and user groups' needs, which is very important. We need a broad range of support from all Canadians when we undertake these initiatives While we understand the direct importance of protection of land areas, we have to ensure that we strike that perfect balance with the opportunity for access for other uses. I think we have done that quite well, and I am proud that almost 5,000 square kilometres will be added to the park. Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I will enthusiastically encourage all fellow members of the House to join me in supporting Bill S-5 , the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act. As my colleague from Yukon has reminded the House, this legislation would protect unparalleled wilderness lands in the Northwest Territories, about 5,000 square km, which is an area only a little smaller than the entire province of Prince Edward Island. In August 2012, I had the honour of travelling with the Prime Minister to Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories to announce the establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

The name of the proposed national park reserve comes from North Slavey, an aboriginal language. The word means “pointed like a porcupine quill” and refers to the shape of Mount Wilson, which is a peak that looms over a series of moose ponds in the proposed reserve, which are the headwaters for the world-famous South Nahanni River. Aboriginal people consider this mountain sacred. They have lived off the surrounding lands for millennia.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve completes the ongoing work to significantly expand the Nahanni National Park Reserve and to conserve a significant portion of the South Nahanni River watershed. In short, Canada has expanded the boundary of Nahanni to the point that it is the third-largest national park complex in the country. This expansion, the largest in Canada's history, would build on our country's strong tradition of national parks and our international leadership in conservation.

The boundaries of the proposed park reserve are the product of a broad process of collaboration and consultation. Hundreds of individuals, over a number of years, shared their views on the proposed boundaries. Representatives of aboriginal groups, territorial governments, regional community corporations, mining companies, and other federal departments were also brought into the consultations. Ultimately, the proposed boundaries would achieve key conservation gains, such as protecting the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River and habitat for woodland caribou and grizzly bear.

They would provide for conservation values and visitor experience without blocking access to significant areas with high mineral potential. The proposed boundaries would also ensure that the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would protect nearly 4,900 square kilometres of the Sahtu Dene and Métis settlement area of the Northwest Territories. The legislation before us would also support Canada's national conservation plan, announced recently by the Prime Minister .

The plan proposes to contribute to Canada's long-term prosperity by taking concrete action in three priority areas: conserving our lands and waters, restoring ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature. The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would support each one of these three priorities. It would conserve a beautiful landscape located in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories and, as my friend reminded us, along the Yukon border. Given its remote location, this land fortunately remains largely unspoiled.

The protections afforded through the legislation now before us would ensure that these lands and waters would continue to be enjoyed for many generations to come. The massive expansion of protected areas in this part of Canada would also help preserve a unique ecosystem. With the addition of Nááts’ihch’oh, more than 85% of the South Nahanni watershed would be protected. Today, this region features habitat for mountain woodland caribou, grizzly bear, Dall sheep, mountain goats, and trumpeter swans.

During the all-too-short summers, the fields burst into life as wildflowers bloom and insects buzz over a thick carpet of moss, grass, and shrubs.

(1210) Creating the new park reserve would mean that more than 10% of Canada's north would be managed as protected areas for the benefit of Canadians, for the benefit of aboriginals, and for the benefit of local communities. In total, the north would have 11 national parks, 6 national wildlife areas, and 16 migratory bird sanctuaries. The total area would include nearly 400,000 square kilometres, an area about the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I think is quite a legacy for future generations.

Given its timeless beauty and abundance of flora and fauna, it is no wonder that aboriginal people have long felt a deep connection with this part of their north. A particularly spiritual place to the Sahtu Dene and the Métis people is the mountain that towers above the Moose Ponds on the upper South Nahanni River. Creating the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would mean these lands would also attract visitors from outside the north. People would come from across Canada, we hope, to see the spectacular landscapes of the upper reaches of the world-famous South Nahanni River.

Visitors would also be able to hike, canoe, raft, and climb in the new Nááts’ihch’oh and the recently expanded Nahanni national park reserves. The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would demonstrate to Canadians that this government understands the importance of protecting wilderness, while continuing to make it accessible for people domestically and from around the world.

The bill would also provide the Minister of the Environment with the powers to permit two pre-existing mineral access roads through a small part of the national park reserve and to enforce the necessary measures to ensure that the environment is protected where required. These road provisions are exactly what Parliament approved in 2009 when it passed legislation to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve sixfold.

There is a mineral access route contemplated in the northwestern part of Nahanni that travels north into the new Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, and Bill S-5 would simply extend the minister's powers to permit that part of the road within Nááts’ihch’oh. The Government of the Northwest Territories has indicated that there are processes now in place, should any development be proposed for lands adjacent to the new national park reserve, so that there will be environmental assessment, including public hearings, under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has stated many times and very clearly that it has a very rigorous system of oversight and practice with regard to the protection of the environment. Even with the proposed park boundary, any adjacent development would be subject to a very thorough review in the context of maintaining and protecting the park.

The bill is, I believe, a concrete example of the action we are taking within the northern strategy, which proposes a responsible approach to development, one that balances environmental protection with social and economic development, one that empowers northerners and exercises Canada's sovereignty in the north. People would have an active role in managing this new national park reserve, which would help build capacity and, at the same time, strengthen northern governance.

I would hope, in closing, that hon. members would join me in supporting Bill S-5 , Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act. (1215) [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. In regard to the importance of creating parks, we have signed the Aichi targets, which require us to increase protected areas. The national conservation plan created by the Conservatives with the participation of the New Democrats is a plan that could go in the right direction but, once again, its implementation has been delayed, and that is unfortunate.

I am especially concerned about the species at risk, as well as the flora and fauna. I was involved in quite a file dealing with the belugas in Cacouna. My colleague said that a number of species, including grizzly bears and Dall sheep, were going to be protected but, in fact, the vast majority of the critical habitat is outside the proposed park. That habitat will therefore not even be protected. How does he explain the fact that on the one hand he says that these species will be protected, but on the other, he has not even included the critical habitat, the vast majority of which is outside the park? Hon.

Peter Kent : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. [ English ] I think that the breadth of the member's original question, before focusing on the protection of flora and fauna, particularly wildlife and all its forms in the new Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, makes it a complicated and very large question. There is the creation and stewardship of both our traditional national parks and our new national park reserves and marine protected areas on all three coasts in very different parts of the country.

There is the new Sable Island National Park Reserve, the proposed Rouge national urban park reserve within the outskirts of the Greater Toronto Area, and of course, Nááts’ihch’oh, which is a remote, still largely unsullied part of our great natural spaces in the north. They face a number of challenges in terms of designing the national park plan for each individual park, such as ensuring that there is reasonable accessibility for visitors and considering highways as well as a variety of civilization infrastructure realities, such as power lines and so forth. Parks Canada is world renowned.

In my travels around the world, in almost every situation when visiting a protected national space abroad, I have heard from the administrators of these parks of their great admiration for the work of Parks Canada. In regard to the protected species within Nááts’ihch’oh national park, great care has been taken, because Nááts’ihch’oh has a very important part to play in the life and continued existence of the woodland caribou.

On the calving grounds, both the Sahtu and Dene people, the Northwest Territories, and wildlife authorities have advised protecting these birthing grounds, and I can assure my colleague that they would be protected under this legislation.

(1220) Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Thornhill . Obviously, as we heard from both his speech and his answers to questions in the House, he has a tremendous amount of knowledge about this park. He has done a tremendous amount of work to get us to this point, and I would like to thank him for that. The member mentioned early in his speech that he was present in Norman Wells to make the announcement about this, and I was pleased to be able to join him there. Could my hon. colleague talk about what the community atmosphere was like when we were there to do that?

What was the reception like and how did the community feel? These are very important issues to bring to the House of Commons during this debate, because we were there as the announcement was made and we saw the enthusiasm. If the member could share his personal perspective and talk about how the people there felt, I think it would provide some value to this debate. Hon. Peter Kent : Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to travel in the northern reaches of our country with the hon. member for Yukon .

The work to create this additional protected space adjacent to the great Nahanni National Park Reserve has taken many years and extensive consultations with all of the groups that I mentioned in my speech, including the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the regional community corporations, and equally important, the people who have lived on this land for thousands of years, the Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples. In their negotiations, they had a variety of views on exactly what needed to be protected and how it should be protected.

I can assure members of the House that there were many versions of the ultimate map designating exactly what the boundaries of the park would be, including the protected areas, the spiritually relevant areas of the park, and the areas relevant to protecting wildlife and biodiversity, as I mentioned in a previous answer to a colleague on the other side of the House.

At the Prime Minister's announcement in Norman Wells not far from the new park, which still requires infrastructure to be developed to allow easier access, there was great joy and satisfaction that all of the considerations necessary to create a new national park had been recognized in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen the smallest of the options that were available.

There is extreme concern, because the government seems to have listened more to the mining industries and to those wanting to develop than to those who are looking at sustainable economic activity in the area. My colleague spoke about the wildlife and so on a while ago. Given the boundaries around this area, can he guarantee that there will no mineral development along the Little Nahanni River around the boundaries of that park? Hon. Peter Kent : Mr. Speaker, I can answer the concerns raised by my colleague in her well-reasoned and thoughtful question.

Sometimes we think only in the context of our great traditional centuries-old national parks and the protections that have continued over the decades, but we must realize that with the creation of any new national park, the Government of Canada and Parks Canada are not the sole decision-makers in these matters.

We are in partnership with governments, in this case the Government of the Northwest Territories, with the various communities of the north, and, as my colleague mentioned, with the input of those organizations and companies that this government believes are responsible for helping to build the economic vitality of not just the urban south but of the north. I salute the ambition of those among us who would make our entire northern lands into one great national park reserve with no development.

However, it is the responsibility not only of the Government of Canada but also the people of Canada, the provinces and territories, and local governments to consider exactly the balance between environmental protection of our special places and reasonable social and economic development. The legislation now before us speaks to exactly that balance.

(1225) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, as other members have done, I would like to convey condolences to the families of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Today, I am rising to speak to Bill S-5,

an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act with regard to the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada . In an earlier exchange with the member for Yukon , I indicated that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. It is very important to get the bill to committee to review after second reading. I am going to quote some background information from the legislative

summary to put this bill into context: The bill amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Nááts’ihch’oh...National Park Reserve of Canada in the Northwest Territories. The park reserve, which measures 4,895 km², is located in the northern one sixth of the South Nahanni River watershed in the Northwest Territories, adjacent to and to the northwest of the existing Nahanni National Park Reserve. Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve is situated entirely in the Tulita District of the Sahtu Settlement Area.

It is being established as a park reserve rather than as a park in accordance with the stipulation in the Canada National Parks Act that “[p]ark reserves are established … where an area or a portion of an area proposed for a park is subject to a claim in respect of aboriginal rights that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada.” It is not until “outstanding Aboriginal claims have been settled and all necessary agreements are reached that provide for the park’s establishment [that] the park reserve is given national park status.” The South Nahanni River watershed is an important cultural, spiritual and natural area for the First Nations and Métis peoples of the Sahtu Settlement Area, Dehcho Region and eastern Yukon.

It is home to several important species, including grizzly bears, woodland caribou, Dall’s sheep and Canada’s northernmost populations of mountain goat and hoary marmot. The Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples of the region have long recommended that the area that will form this park reserve be conserved. The legislative

summary goes on to discuss the path to creating the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada: The Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve will complete the protection offered by the national parks system to the Greater Nahanni ecosystem. Nahanni National Park Reserve, which is situated in the Dehcho Region, was created in 1972, in large part to prevent the construction of a hydroelectric project at Virginia Falls. Initially the Nahanni park reserve covered about one seventh of the Greater Nahanni ecosystem.

At the time, research indicated that, in this area with many competing land uses and with most of the water in the park reserve coming from outside its boundaries, a larger park would better protect the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. In 2009, Nahanni National Park Reserve’s size was increased six-fold within the Dehcho Region. To expand protection of the greater Nahanni ecosystem into the adjacent Sahtu Settlement Area, in 2007, Parks Canada approached the Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples of the Tulita District.

The negotiation process and requirements for creating a new park or park reserve within the Sahtu Settlement Area are defined in

chapter 16 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993). The purpose of such parks is: to preserve and protect for future generations representative natural areas of national significance, including the wildlife resources of such areas, and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of such areas, while providing for the rights of the participants under this agreement to use such areas for the harvesting of wildlife and plants.

In addition to affirming various traditional rights and uses, the agreement states, “Exploration for and development of minerals shall not be permitted within a national park, except as may be required for construction purposes within the park.” As part of the process of creating a park reserve under the agreement, an impact benefit plan was required to lay out “the relationship between the Sahtu Dene and Metis and Parks Canada for managing a national park reserve.” A memorandum of understanding for negotiating the impact benefit plan was signed in April 2008.

While a number of competing uses for the land, including outfitting and sport hunting, were proposed for the park reserve, the most contentious issue was mining and mineral exploration. I will come back to this point in a moment. I want to comment for a moment on the process, and for this I am referring to Wikipedia, because it had a very succinct description of the process. It says: Following the announcement, three plans for the park boundaries were proposed. The region is known for its mineral potential, and mining companies were concerned that the park would limit their access to these minerals.

The first scenario would have made the park 6,450 square kilometres, protected 94 per cent of the upper watershed of the South Nahanni River, 95 percent of the grizzly bear habitat and 81 percent of the woodland caribou summer habitat, leaving 20 per cent of the overall mineral potential outside of the park's boundaries and potentially available for development.

The Government of Canada chose the third option for the final park boundary that leaves 70 per cent of the overall mineral potential outside the park while retaining 70 percent of the grizzly bear habitat and 44 percent of the summer calving grounds of the woodland caribou herd within the park boundary." During negotiations, concerns were raised about the impact that mining the region would have on the South Nahanni watershed. ...

(1230) In reviewing these three options, I want to refer to Parks Canada's own consultation process. This was the final consultation report from August 30, 2010. In that report, one of the things that happened was that participants were asked to indicate what their preference was of the options that had been proposed. Although only three options were presented for choosing a preference, there was actually a fourth option, but only three options were indicated as preferences.

Option number one, which is not the preference that was chosen by the government, had 92.3% of participants indicate that this was the option that they would prefer. Option number two had 4.6%, and option number three had only 3.1%. We can see that participants in the consultation overwhelmingly favoured that first option. From that final report, I want to refer to some of the findings from the consultations with aboriginal peoples in the Sahtu region.

The report states: A frequently expressed comment in the Sahtu region consultations was that it does not make sense to have a national park reserve if you also allow mining to exist in the watershed. Participants stated their distrust of the mining industry and the environmental assessments to protect the natural environment concerned, that the impacts of mining would be harmful to the watershed downstream. It was suggested by participants that protecting the water should be a higher priority than obtaining the employment and financial benefits of mining (seen as small benefits).

While some participants saw a balance of economic and conservation values as beneficial (e.g. Option 1 was seen to accommodate miners to keep their leases and Sahtu to protect the watershed and animals), many others felt that mining should not be allowed at all in the watershed. It was suggested that the key concern in deciding on the boundary should be the conservation of wildlife and water. The beauty and importance of the Naats'ihch'oh area was highlighted by many consultation participants in the Sahtu.

They stated that the area was very important to peoples of the Sahtu, Dehcho and Kaska (Ross River Dena Council and Liard First Nation, Yukon). One Tulita Elder described the mountain itself (Naats'ihch'oh) as sacred to these peoples; it has been used to teach and to heal. “This area has power...powerful medicine. The area is so powerful that it will heal you...used in the past to heal people before white medicine.

For these reasons we don't want to lose this area to development and it should become a park.” Of course, there were many other pieces of input with regard to the consultation, but that very succinctly sums up what the Sahtu peoples were talking about in terms of preservation of the area. Further on in the public consultation report, there was an analysis of the proposed options. It states: ...Option 1 was seen as the best way to facilitate maximum protection of the watershed and habitat of the important species, while also accommodating resource potential in the park.

A number of the participants who preferred Option 1 qualified this choice by indicating that Option 1 represented the next best approach to protection of the entire South Nahanni River watershed and preferred that mining leases be bought out. They also indicated that if mining activities are allowed in the vicinity of the park reserve in the upper watershed of the South Nahanni River, the most stringent environmental controls and management should be applied. We can see clearly that the participants in the study preferred option number one.

They talked about what needed to be in place in order to preserve this very important area, an area that is important economically, spiritually, and culturally. Part of the concern that the member for Northwest Territories raised when he gave his speech here in the House was that despite the consultations and the preference from people in the region, this was not the option that was selected.

In addition, the member raised some concerns with regard to the funding and resources needed to support the development of this park and to protect its integrity in the longer run, and in this connection I want to refer to the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that was tabled in this House in the fall of 2013. This report was on ecological integrity in national parks.

(1235) In the introduction of this report, one of the things that the commissioner did was outline the benefits that national parks provide, and these include the following: ...serve as storehouses of biological diversity, including species at risk...; provide vital functions in the ecosystem, such as carbon sequestration, stormwater surge protection, freshwater filtration, and pollination; provide benchmarks for researchers to compare undisturbed ecosystems within national parks against lands outside of national parks that have been subject to human activities; and protect areas so that the present and future generations will have opportunities to connect with nature, appreciate natural heritage, and support its conservation.

In the report from the commissioner, she raised a number of concerns. I am going to focus on the resources for maintaining ecological integrity because that is one of the concerns that has been raised, whether those resources would be available. The commissioner, in paragraph 7.68, found that overall spending on heritage resources conservation decreased by 15% in the 2012-13 fiscal year, compared with the average of the preceding six years, with further reductions planned as part of decisions flowing from the 2012 federal budget.

The planned staffing numbers in heritage resources conservation were reduced by 23% in the 2013-14 fiscal year, compared with the average of the previous seven years. More specifically, staffing in the science work stream was reduced by 33% during this period, as 60 of 179 positions were eliminated. The report also found that the number of positions that are seasonal increased from 37% to almost 60% in 2013-14 fiscal year. This exacerbates the impact of the reduction in the number of positions because seasonal staff work for only part of the year.

Further on in that same report where the concerns were being raised, we find that the spending on heritage Canada resources conservation of Parks Canada has recently decreased by 15%, and it goes on to cite some of the same numbers. However, it states that Parks Canada has not clarified how and by when, with significantly fewer resources, the agency will address the backlog of unfinished work, the emerging threats to ecological integrity, and the decline in the condition of 34% of park ecosystems that it has identified.

As a consequence, “there is a significant risk that the Agency could fall further behind in its efforts to maintain or restore ecological integrity in Canada's national parks” system. Earlier, when I posed a question to the member for Yukon , with regard to whether the government would commit sufficient resources in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of the proposed park reserve would be maintained, the member referenced the budget announcement, and I just want to put some facts on the table.

First, Parks Canada identified aging infrastructure and inadequate levels of funding in maintenance as a key risk for the department in its November 2013 departmental performance report. The departmental performance report also showed that over $17 million in approved funding for heritage resources conservation and $22 million in townsite and throughway infrastructure funding was allowed to lapse in the 2012-13 period. When we were talking about the budget, the member was correct when he indicated that the budget announced $391 million over five years to deal with crumbling buildings, roads, and dams.

However, what he did not indicate was that, first, the amount would not cover the backlog, but more importantly, because the money is being phased in over five years, in 2014 only $1 million would be spent, in 2015 $4 million would be spent, and the bulk of the money, $386 million, would be spent after the next federal election. We have been seeing these kinds of smoke-and-mirrors budget announcements in any number of areas. I am the aboriginal affairs critic for the New Democrats. We saw an education announcement that indicated that most of the money would flow after the next federal election.

Therefore, this is another one of those cases of “Trust me; the cheque is in the mail”. It is important to note that money is not a slam dunk. If the government really does want to support the development of this park reserve, if it really does want to support the peoples of the region, it needs to indicate, very clearly, its intention to ensure that money will flow.

(1240) Again, New Democrats are wholeheartedly behind the creation of this park reserve. We are wholeheartedly in support of the bill moving forward and making sure it happens expeditiously. Members will know that this has been a long time in the making and it is well past the time that we do this preservation. However, a number of other organizations have also raised concerns and I will refer to the CPAWS Northwest Territories analysis. In its analysis, it indicated: Protecting the South Nahanni watershed is broadly supported locally, across Canada, and internationally.

In 2006, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee recommended that Canada protect the entire South Nahanni watershed in recognition of the area’s globally significant values. Scientists have also recommended that the entire watershed be protected in order to secure its ecological integrity, including adequate habitat for woodland caribou, Dall’s sheep and grizzly bears.... The original study area for Nááts’ihch’oh NPR included important habitat for grizzly bears and key calving and breeding grounds for the Nahanni and Redstone herds of mountain woodland caribou.

Both of these species are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, and need large intact areas to survive. The area is also home to the northernmost populations of mountain goats in Canada, and is home to Dall’s sheep which are part of the genetically unique Nahanni population that was isolated during the last ice age....

The boundary announced by [the Prime Minster] in 2012 falls far short of what is needed to protect the ecological integrity of the world-renowned South Nahanni watershed, leaving critical wildlife habitat, including caribou calving and breeding grounds, and source waters of the Nahanni River outside the park boundary. This boundary disregarded public input in the park establishment process, as well as scientific evidence of what’s needed to fully protect the ecological integrity of the area and the habitat of these sensitive species.

The boundary takes full advantage of potential industrial development in the area, protecting less area than any option presented during the public consultations.... Though relatively pristine, resource exploration, mine development and road access have encroached upon the headwaters of the South Nahanni River. There is a real risk that the ecological integrity of the entire watershed will be compromised if Nááts´ihch´oh NPR is not expanded to fully protect the remaining part of the watershed.

Its role in completing protection of the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem, as well as its ecological and cultural significance, make it a critical area to fully protect. As I indicated earlier, New Democrats are fully in support of the bill being sent to committee. At committee, I am sure there will be an opportunity for a very fulsome review of the bill and of the final consultation report that Parks Canada conducted, and an opportunity to hear from witnesses from the first nations and Métis peoples of the region, environmental organizations and industry on their perspectives on the particular option that was proposed.

One thing I think many people will be looking forward to hearing about is how the ecological integrity of the park reserve will be preserved in the context of other kinds of activities that can be allowed. As well, it will be very important for the government to clarify exactly what resources will be available, both in terms of financial and human resources, in order to ensure that Parks Canada will be able to do its job in promoting and supporting the ecological integrity of the park reserve.

In conclusion, New Democrats are supporting the bill at second reading and I look forward to the discussion that will happen at committee.

(1245) Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, as well as her commitment to pass this expeditiously. I want to ask her to clarify what “expeditiously” means. Has she dealt with her colleagues and are they ready to let this pass today? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the process in the House is a negotiation between our two House leaders.

Therefore, I would suggest that he speak to his House leader, I will speak to my House leader, and we will allow the two of them to sort that out procedurally, because that is the most appropriate place for that discussion to take place. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his very important, well-thought-out and eloquent speech. The Government of Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity with the so-called Aichi targets.

It is important to meet those targets, which seek to protect at least 17% of biodiversity by 2020. Right now, only 10% of biodiversity is protected. I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I participated with the Conservatives and Liberals in developing the national conservation plan. I am pleased to see that this plan exists, but unfortunately it is still not being implemented. There are new parks, but we keep seeing problems. For instance, there are problems with the Sable Island national park, the Rouge national urban park and now the Nááts’ihch’oh national park.

This park will not provide the natural habitat needed to protect the wildlife that is supposed to live there. What can my colleague make of the whole situation? [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer back once again to the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner specifically talked about ecological integrity and its importance.

The commissioner's report said: Ecological integrity is a characteristic of healthy ecosystems: those that have complete food webs; a full complement of native plants and animals that can maintain their populations; and functioning ecosystem processes such as nutrient, water, and natural fire cycles that ensure the survival of those species. It goes on to talk about the importance of this ecological integrity.

If we recognize that a functioning ecosystem is very important, what we need to do is to ensure that when we are developing parks and park reserves, we have enough of a land base to protect the whole ecosystem and that we put the resources in place to ensure that the integrity remains intact. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette : Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave me a good answer in saying that the boundaries of the park have really been poorly drawn. Let me quote Alison Woodley, the national director of the parks program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

She was present when the bill was before the Senate committee: Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area. We support the creation of new parks and we are pleased to see this new park.

However, why are the Conservatives not giving more consideration to the recommendations of experts to ensure the ecological integrity and proper protection of parks? It is not true that protecting parks will harm the economy, quite the contrary. I will let my colleague answer the following question: what could be done to make the the Conservative government realize that park creation is also good for the economy? (1250) [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of pieces around this, and I also want to go back to a quote that was provided.

Stephen Kakfwi, former premier of the Northwest Territories, also indicated great disappointment in the way the boundaries were drawn. He said, in part, that what happened was that local people were put in a corner because it was either the smaller protected area that they desired or no protection at all, and this was in the Manitoba Wildlands news on October 24, 2012. That is troubling when people are given such a stark choice, a take it or leave it choice. They take the smaller area or they get nothing.

I want to reference the Tsilhqot'in decision, a very important decision that just came out of British Columbia. The Supreme Court made the decision, but it was a British Columbia matter with regard to land rights. In that Supreme Court decision, one of the things the justices said was that there is a responsibility to consider use for future generations. Once again, when we are weighing the preservation of the ecological integrity and weighing economic benefits, one of the things that absolutely must be part of the equation and part of that discussion is the impact for future generations.

What will they be left with, once we are all long gone? Those are all very important considerations when the boundaries are determined for this particular area. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is around the very similar topic of boundaries. I know that, with the creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, there would be a large piece of this land assembly that the people who live on those lands have requested be included in the national park reserve.

With the consultation, 92% of the people had requested option one, which was the largest option that was being considered, and it seems that the boundary that has been chosen by the government is leaving out large pieces of land that are mineral rich. There are lots of resources that would lie outside of the park's boundaries, and this would allow for new mining stakes, which are prohibited inside the park boundaries, to occur just outside. We know that mining for resources does affect the ground water tables. This national park reserve would be at the headwaters of the South Nahanni River.

How would that impact the tributaries, as well as the other rivers that are feeder rivers from the South Nahanni? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this back to a local issue just for one moment. I live in Nanaimo—Cowichan, and I actually live in the Cowichan watershed. This summer we had a crisis in the Cowichan watershed. Our river was so low that not only was the health of our returning salmon going to be impacted but our local industry, a large pulp mill, was literally days from shutting down because it also draws water from the Cowichan River.

The reason I raise that in this context that it is an example of ending up with unintended consequences if we do not do a good job of looking at the whole watershed and looking at all the impacts on the watershed, whether they are mining, resource development, farming, or other industrial uses. In the context of the South Nahanni, it is very important to look at the intact watershed and make decisions based on the health and well-being of that watershed. (1255) [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, to begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River , who is doing excellent work on the Rouge national urban park. That bill will soon be before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am eager to work with her on the committee because I know she is doing excellent work on that file. She has consulted organizations and stakeholders about the park. Unfortunately, the Rouge park also has some problems, which I mentioned during a speech I gave recently.

I want to focus on the fact that Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. That is an important thing to remember because we have obligations. In 2013, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said this: Canada’s targets under the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity are key to conserving biodiversity.... Achieving them will require a concerted effort from many players, from governments to businesses to individual Canadians. The commissioner's report stated that the government needs to do much more than it is currently doing.

As I said earlier in one of my answers, the target is 17% by 2020, and we are just at 10%. This is not just about protecting land. This is about protecting land of significant ecological value because of its biological diversity. As I said, the national conservation plan is very important, and the NDP is very proud to have worked on the plan together with the other parties. What we have to do now is implement the national conservation plan, and we have to do it fast.

Unfortunately, the bills we have seen recently do not truly address what we call ecological integrity, which, I should point out, is part of the Canada National Parks Act. It is very important to remember that we have this problem and that we also have a problem when it comes to actual implementation, be it for the Sable Island park, the Rouge park proposal, or now, the Nááts’ihch’oh park. MPs have raised concerns, but so have the experts, of course. I would like to go back to something. Of course we are supporting the bill because we are in favour of creating parks.

There were a large number of consultations, and we understand that this park is largely a proper response. For years, there were consultations and studies on this. However, we are concerned about the Conservative government's attitude toward parks. Cuts to Parks Canada in the 2012 budget resulted in the elimination of one-third of scientific positions. Clearly, it could be difficult to enforce regulations governing conservation and the development of new parks when one-third of the scientific capacity was cut with one fell swoop in 2012.

As well, we want to give Canadians the opportunity to go to national parks; however, the season has been shortened, services have been reduced in the parks, and fees have been increased. The Conservatives' approach is somewhat odd. However, according to a report published by the Canadian Parks Council in 2011, Canadian parks support more than 64,000 full-time jobs and generate $2.9 billion in employment income as well as $337 million in revenue for the government. This shows the importance of national parks and why we need to stop pitting nature against economic development.

On the contrary, the environment and the development of new parks will spur economic development, as was mentioned in the report published in 2011 by the Canadian Parks Council. I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again: the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development said that budget cuts at Parks Canada are adversely affecting the integrity of the parks and the environment. Cuts definitely do not help.

(1300) This brings me to Bill S-5 , the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve act. We are disappointed about some aspects of the bill, but we are happy to support it nonetheless, because at least we are adding to the number of national parks. The bill followed consultations revealing that the public overwhelmingly supported creating a park that is bigger than the one we have now, but the Conservatives ignored that fact. They ignored public opinion and decided to protect only the smallest of the three possible zones. They failed to include some very important wildlife areas, which is really disappointing.

We are afraid that the park is not big enough, especially because the vital breeding areas for caribou and some of the headwaters of the Nahanni River are not protected. Those are some of our concerns regarding the creation of this park. I would like to share a quote from Alison Woodley, the parks program national director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

During the Senate committee's review of Bill S-5, she said: Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area. Bill S-5 falls far short of being a significant conservation achievement. Ms.

Woodley specializes in parks and conservation projects. Earlier I said that this was unfortunate, because it is a good idea and the consultation was done. Unfortunately, the result was a disappointing bill, and it will not help Canada achieve the Aichi targets in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that we need to meet. We committed to this convention and we signed it. The Conservative government needs to be much more proactive and needs to take more significant action.

I can say that when the NDP takes power in 2015, we will be much more proactive about creating parks, and we will ensure that everything will be based on solid science. We will not cut the number of scientists by one-third. On the contrary, we will invest in science to create new parks and comply with the convention. When we create a new park, we will ensure that it will protect critical habitats and important rivers as much as possible.

(1305) Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his good work in the House and in his riding. [ English ] I would like to get back to the issue of public engagement, which my hon. colleague referenced in part. We have a government that, when it can, will skirt public engagement or tilt the results in its favour in order to get what it is after. We have seen this time and time again. We are seeing it in this case too.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on this as part of a larger story of the way the government tries to not listen to the concerns and the wishes of Canadians. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. It is the same as what is happening with the Rouge national park. The Conservative government simply wants to do what it wants. It disregards consultations and ignores the concerns that have been raised about preserving ecological integrity.

My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River will be in committee to make sure that the Conservatives listen to reason, and I hope that they will be able to understand how important this issue is. This bill on the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is just as important. The public was calling for the biggest among the three proposed plans, but unfortunately what came out was the smallest plan that offered the least value in term of conservation. [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it should be noted that our government has, in fact, increased the amount of protected land in the country considerably since we have taken office. This, of course, means a gain in the protection of ecological integrity in our lands across the country. With regard to this particular park, I was wondering if my colleague would indeed verify that it would be a net benefit in terms of the protection of land in Canada if this particular piece of legislation passed.

As well, could he acknowledge that it would be in the implementation of a parks management plan that there would be further engagement in terms of both visitor experience and the development of ecological integrity plans? [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette : Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work that my hon. colleague tried to do when she was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. Unfortunately, when she was in that role in 2012, massive cuts were made to the budget of Parks Canada.

This resulted in the loss of a third of the scientific staff complement, the very people who enable us to properly assess ecological integrity and create parks that will best improve wildlife conservation and respect our convention on ecological biodiversity. This park is a good start, but it is not the park the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the general public were hoping for. Indeed, we were together at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development when we worked on the national conservation plan. Nonetheless, we must now enforce it and we are way behind.

Only 10% of land is protected, while the target is 17% by 2020, which is fast approaching. The NDP will form the government before then, which will improve things. [ English ] Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am rising in the House since the incidents of yesterday, I just want to take a moment to thank all the House of Commons security services and all our security partners who helped. I extend my deepest condolences and those of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River to the family of Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

Our thoughts and prayers are also with Constable Son, of the House of Commons security team, who suffered a gunshot wound, in the line of duty, protecting our House of democracy. I will move on to Bill S-5 , which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada. The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is in the Northwest Territories in the South Nahanni watershed. The proposed area for the park covers an area of 4,895 square kilometres, situated entirely in the Tulita district of the Sahtu settlement area.

The proposed area for the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been long recommended for conservation by the aboriginal Sahtu people, who have been the guardians of that land for thousands of years. They have said that land use should be for conservation. I was reading from CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Northwest Territories Chapter, when I was doing some research to learn about the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

The first thing that came up is the following: Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve lies in the headwaters of the South Nahanni River watershed, upstream from and adjacent to Nahanni National Park Reserve...and World Heritage Site. These two parks, working together, are necessary to protect the globally-renowned land, water and wildlife of the South Nahanni Watershed. Right away, when I was doing my research, the first words that came up were about the importance of conservation for the aboriginal people of the Sahtu, who have been the protectors of those lands for thousands of years.

Then, from CPAWS Northwest Territories, the word that stood out for me was “protect”. It is to protect the land assembly and the groundwater table and the entire watershed. The proposed Rouge national urban park has a potential land assembly of 100 square kilometres, which includes land surrounding the Rouge river and the Duffins Creek watershed in Toronto, Markham, and Pickering. It is the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations and has sacred burial grounds and village sites.

This past weekend, I spent four hours in the Rouge visiting the sacred burial grounds, the location of a past ossuary. I spent time with an aboriginal elder, David Grey Eagle, who has been protecting these lands, working with the Friends of the Rouge Watershed and many other local people who care about Rouge Park. We have been fighting for 100 square kilometres of park, but what the government has proposed for the study area, not even the actual final park size but the study area, is 57 square kilometres.

The reason I am talking about Rouge Park is that I see the same pattern with the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. When the government did the consultation with the community for the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, there were three options presented: option one was a total area of 6,450 square kilometres; option two was 5,770 square kilometres; and option three, which was the smallest of the proposals, was 4,840 square kilometres.

Of the people who sent in responses and comments through the consultation process, 92.3% supported option one, which was 6,450 square kilometres; 4.6% supported option two; and 3% supported option three.

(1310) The government ended up making minor adjustments, and the option it is putting forward is the closest to option three. The government is supporting approximately 3% of all the people who were consulted on what they wanted for that protected land area. It does not make any sense. The government should be supporting the comments of 92.3% of the people consulted rather than 3%. The Nahanni National Park Reserve, which is just south of the Nááts'ilch'oh national protected reserve, would protect approximately 86% of the watershed of the South Nahanni River.

Protecting 86% of the watershed would not ensure the ecological integrity of the entire watershed. It is important that 100% of the watershed be protected, not 86%. It is also important to note that the area is rich in mineral resources. The final park boundaries put forward by the government were selected so that a maximum amount of mineral resources lie outside the boundaries. This is disconcerting, because new mining stakes are prohibited within the park boundaries. It would seem that the boundaries have been adjusted and rejigged to allow for new mining stakes to occur just outside the park boundaries.

This is concerning, because through mining processes, the watershed will continue to be affected in a negative way if it is not done in a sustainable manner. I and 92.3% of the people in the area are concerned about the proposed boundaries. It would also leave out critical wildlife areas that lie outside the Nááts'ilch'oh national park reserve. When I say critical wildlife areas, I mean the caribou calving and breeding grounds.

Major upstream tributaries of the South Nahanni River flow downstream into the Nahanni National Park Reserve, which makes it more of a concern, because it would not be just the Nááts'ilch'oh national park reserve but the Nahanni National Park Reserve that would be affected, because its tributaries would potentially be affected. I would like to quote Mr. Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories, who said that he is “disappointed with the way the boundary lines are drawn”. He said in an interview that the Prime Minister “is protecting the mining interests more than environmental interests.

Unfortunately I think [the Prime Minister] has let down Canadians in his choice”. He went on to say that local people were put in a corner, because it was either the smaller protected area that was put forward or it was nothing. I am in the same position. All New Democrats have the same belief. We want more protected areas. We support the creation of a national park, but it is not fair to put the community in a corner and tell it that it will get this tiny piece of land as a national park or it will get nothing. Why can we not just do it properly?

If we say we are committed to conservation and ecological integrity, then why do we not commit to conservation and ecological integrity instead of saying that we will commit to a small piece and not the whole area?

(1315) Another issue I want to talk about is the maintenance of parks. The Toronto Star reported in December 2013, after a departmental performance report by Parks Canada in November 2013, that there is approximately a $3-billion backlog in the deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. With new parks being created and already a $3-billion backlog in maintenance of these parks, I am concerned for the future of Nááts’ihch’oh. I am also concerned for the future of the Rouge national urban park, which is to be created in my backyard.

I want to know that when we are creating national parks, we are committing to ensuring that they are protected, conserved, that there is ecological integrity of the ecosystems and the habitat, and also that they will be maintained for future use for the generations to come.

(1320) Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, certainly we are very supportive on this side of the House of the creation of a national park. This particular park is one that we do support. The difficulties we have with what the Conservatives have put in place is that, again, they are not looking at their responsibilities with respect to how to best protect the wildlife. They seem to be leaning toward allowing more and more development in the area. That is of concern to many, including the Dehcho.

I listened to my colleague with respect to ecological integrity and the concern she raised with respect to staffing at the park. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan also spoke about the decrease in conservation and spending under the government's watch. I would ask my colleague to elaborate because I know she had a lot to add with respect to the cuts to the parks, which has even been impacting the process for the protection of heritage lighthouses. Could the member speak to the cutbacks to Parks Canada? Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is absolutely correct.

The commissioner of the environment identified that there is consistently a wide gap between what the government commits to and what it is actually achieving. I did mention the departmental performance report in November 2013 and the $3-billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. There has also been the elimination of jobs within Parks Canada. Budget cuts have had a huge impact, and it has led to 33% staffing cuts in science in Parks Canada There is 60 of the 179 positions that were eliminated.

When we create new parks, existing Parks Canada staff are responsible for the creation and maintenance as well as the infrastructure, yet the government is taking 33% of the parks support to do that. It does not make any sense. In the 2013-14 budget announcements, there was announcement of money to be spent on infrastructure and maintenance of the parks. However, I believe the timeline has been absolutely ridiculous.

The budget announcement said that this year, 2014, the government would spend $1 million; in 2015, it would spend $4 million; and then, of course, after the next election, it would spend another $386 million. I think it is absolutely absurd that the government is committing to spending $386 after the next election. Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the issue she was just alluding to around the government announcing projects but not backing that up with enough resources to maintain these projects. It is not good enough to make a ribbon-cutting announcement.

These parks, this infrastructure, require ongoing maintenance. My colleague has spoken to the arrears in maintenance and upkeep in these national parks. This seems to be part of a trend with the government, and I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.

(1325) Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan : Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport hit the nail on the head when he said that the government makes announcements, shows up for ribbon cuttings, and then does not do much to maintain whatever it is that has been opened. I am very concerned. There is already a $3-billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. There have been staffing cuts of 33% in science at Parks Canada. There has been a large budget announcement for spending, but the spending is not going to happen until after the next election.