OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 107 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 19, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 19, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 107 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 107 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 107 (Version officielle) 147 107 19 06 2014 2014/06/19 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions.

[ Translation ] Interparliamentary Delegations Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association respecting its participation at the 41st annual meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, held in Paris and Grenoble, France, from April 25 to 29, 2014.

[ English ] Committees of the House Environment and Sustainable Development Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in. I want to thank my colleagues for such a warm welcome. We have been here for so long that it is hard to be warm these days. I am moving concurrence in the report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am a member of that committee.

The report is called “Terrestrial Habitat Conservation in Canada”. Why did we study this? That is a good question. I am going to go back a bit on why we even have a report on terrestrial conservation. I do not actually remember which throne speech it was, but a couple of throne speeches ago, there were some hints that the government was going to have a conservation strategy. That is not bad news. It is ostensibly good news, so we were excited to see what was going to happen with that. Then the environment committee was tasked with doing a study on what a conservation plan would look like.

On the face of it, that actually seems like really good parliamentary procedure. We have an idea from government. We are going to task a committee to study something and get some really good information so we can give advice to the minister. As I said, on its face, that seems wonderful and it is exciting to actually do good parliamentary work at committee, but what happened is it went off the rails a little bit. I know it is hard to imagine in this environment. Where we started was with a general conservation study. My colleagues and I would show up and we would be keen. We had done our research.

We would ask questions of the witnesses about conservation, what a conservation plan would look like, what that kind of strategy would look like. It was interesting. There were moments when it was very frustrating, because for some reason the Conservatives did not want to hear anything about climate change when it comes to conservation. It is interesting because conservation actually is a good solution to climate change on a lot of fronts. For example, if we are preserving large tracts of land, we are keeping the vegetation that is there. It is basically a natural carbon storage.

We heard some interesting testimony about climate change and how conservation would actually help us deal with the effects of climate change and prevent climate change from advancing. We also heard some really interesting testimony about the impacts of climate change on conservation efforts, the fact that we are going to have to adapt a little bit. If we are going to create parks, for example, we need to think about extreme meteorological events. We need to think about the impact of waves, tides, and storms on our infrastructure. It was good testimony.

Remember that this is not the current report on which I moved this concurrence motion; it was the report before. There was good information, good testimony about climate. None of it is in the report. We have to remember that Conservatives do have a majority on these committees, so what comes out in the end, although we can fight in camera and try to get stuff in a report, it does not end up in the report. There was nothing about climate change. The report was absolutely silent on that subject. Getting back to this idea of studying conservation generally, as I said, there was good testimony.

We were pretty excited. We were thinking that this was our way to contribute to the parliamentary process, the democratic process. We were going to give some advice to the minister. Despite the fact that climate change did not make it into the report, there were some other positives about the report. We had these moments of feeling that we were part of a parliamentary project, that it was a worthwhile endeavour. Then we went in camera to decide the next committee business. All kinds of ideas were put forward. The NDP has all kinds of ideas. We put forward so many motions.

We put forward a motion that our committee review the government's sectoral approach to greenhouse gas regulations, and review the delays in establishing those regulations for the oil and gas sector. We put forward a motion on the Great Lakes and how climate change is impacting the water levels. We put forward a motion about the Arctic, to study the impacts of climate change and resulting new resource development and transportation routes on the Arctic, its environment, species and ecological balance. We came armed with so many good ideas.

We went in camera, where the majority rules, and we came out with a study on urban conservation. We went from conservation to urban conservation. We tried to be optimistic and full of energy and said, “Okay, another conservation study. Here we go.” Maybe there is a point to the urban conservation study, because in some musings that the government members had, they also talked about the creation of Rouge Park, a national park that would be an urban park. I think it would be North America's first urban national park. That is pretty exciting stuff.

Again, there is a glimmer of this ability to contribute to the parliamentary process and government decision-making. That means there would be another study on conservation, but at least it would be on something where maybe there is a hope that the minister would be listening and we could talk about some important issues that we would see the results of in a bill about Rouge Park. We started our study. There was some great testimony from people about urban conservation, the way that people can connect with the natural environment while living in cities and urban environments.

We heard really good testimony about climate change, the way we can mitigate the impacts of climate change, and that we can mitigate the fact that climate is changing, and there are things we need to do to adapt when we are looking at urban conservation and climate change. Of course, none of that ended up in the report, because we cannot talk about climate change at the environment committee. It is quite amazing. We did this study on urban conservation. What was interesting is that on Friday last week the government tabled a bill on the creation of Rouge Park in Scarborough.

I believe it may be on the docket to talk about today, so I have been madly prepping to speak to the bill. It has been really difficult. I read the bill yesterday during my caucus meeting. We had a briefing on it from the minister's office yesterday afternoon. We are scrambling to give some feedback on the bill and we have not had the time to do a proper analysis. I have read it, but I have not digested it. I have not had time to reach out to stakeholders to get their advice on what is in the bill and if it is doing what it purports to do.

However, I will say that I have had the time to look at our notes from that urban conservation study. There was a small

section on Rouge Park that we did in that study. I looked at the bill, and it is not apparent to me where those suggestions from our witnesses are in the final bill. At the time I felt a bit discouraged that we were doing urban conservation right on the heels of a conservation study. However, I thought that maybe we would have an impact on the legislation, that maybe we are giving advice to the minister, which is what committees are supposed to be doing, and maybe it would be in the bill. I have the bill.

Perhaps it will become clearer to me later when I listen to the minister's speech, but I do not see that good advice from the witnesses that we heard at committee reflected in the legislation. I have gone from being a little disheartened by doing two studies in a row on the same subject to wondering what is the point of us even doing these studies if the minister is not listening. We did not choose the study topic. I will leave it to everyone's imagination, but a majority on the committee probably made the decision to study these topics. I wanted to study climate change.

I wanted to study some other topics, but let us make the best of it if we are doing conservation, and then the results of our report are not even reflected in the bill. There were two studies on conservation. We finished the study on urban conservation. If my memory serves me correctly, I think we managed to work in a rare show of collaboration with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment . I think we had a unanimous report on urban conservation. There is nothing egregious in it. We pointed out that it is missing a lot of things, but the information that was in there was accurate.

There was no discussion on climate change, which we pointed out. Then we went in camera and we made decisions about what we would study next. It is on the public record that the NDP put forward some incredible motions, such as doing a study on the Species at Risk Act, its implementation and funding. That is a really important issue right now. It is one of the only pieces of environmental legislation that was not gutted in the 2012 omnibus budgets.

Speaking of budgets, we put on the record that we wanted to do a study on the impacts of budget cuts on the operations, sustainability and accessibility for visitors, and sustainability impacts for the surrounding communities to Parks Canada. That is a great idea. Why are we not looking at the fact that we have seen all these job losses and all these budget cuts at Parks Canada?

(1010) Time passes. Also, in 2013, we had motion to receive a briefing by the official Canadian delegation to the climate change convention negotiations prior to the meetings in Warsaw in November 2013 to detail Canada's negotiating priorities. It sounded good to me. We are still waiting for that briefing. An hon. member: 2014. Ms. Megan Leslie: It is 2014, I know, Mr. Speaker. There is no point any more. We come out, and what is on the docket for us to study? Terrestrial conservation. Do we not wish we were on environment committee? Talk about demoralizing.

I think there are good reasons to talk about terrestrial conservation, but there are so many other issues, and we have already done two studies on conservation. Now we are doing terrestrial conservation, and that is what this report is, for which I moved concurrence today. Why terrestrial conservation? Why not marine conservation? We would not want to study marine conservation because then we would have to talk about fish habitat. This is a way of excluding the important legislation that government gutted back in 2012.

The House will remember there was a budget announcement in 2012 and then there were two bills after that in 2012. Those two bills, both of which passed, were remarkable in many ways. They were omnibus pieces of legislation. The first one touched over 70 pieces of legislation: it amended or repealed in some way or added to 70 pieces of legislation, all wrapped up in one bill that was over 400 pages long. Then we had a second one in the fall. This is really significant. It is a little hobby horse of mine that the first bill, a budget bill, made changes to assisted human reproduction.

Whether or not I can be a surrogate, whether or not I can sell my eggs was in a budget bill. My reproduction has nothing to do with the budget. We have these giant omnibus bills. What happened on environment? A number of things. The Environmental Assessment Act was repealed. It was not tweaked or amended; it was pulled off the books and replaced with another one. What are the problems with it? For example, we have had what is called a trigger system with environment assessment.

If a project touched a federal issue, such as migratory birds or waterways that crossed provincial boundaries, it would trigger an environmental assessment. That makes sense. We can wrap our head around why it would be that way. However, now we have a list of things that mean environmental assessment. If something is not on the list, there is no environmental assessment. Why is that problematic? Members should think about the oil sands. If we had had a definitive list 70 years ago, oil sands exploration would not have been on that list because we would not have known it was in the realm of the possible.

We would not have considered that we should put oil sands development on the list. A trigger is important, because it is the situation that causes the assessment, not this definitive list. The other thing about the list is that it is cabinet that makes up the list. It is trouble, because the list is narrow. Seismic testing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not on that list. I think that is pretty problematic. We have moved from the trigger to the list. We also had the environment commissioner testify at committee about this list. There used to be three stages of environmental assessment.

The lowest stage was like a paper stage, where one would submit documents and get feedback on them, but it was still effective. Forgive me if I get the numbers a little bit wrong because I am tapping into my memory. We asked the environment commissioner how many environmental assessments were being done. My memory says he said 4,000 to 6,000 per year. My next question was how many will be done now that the Environmental Assessment Act has been replaced in this regime. He said 10 to 12. I actually thought he meant 10,000 to 12,000, but he said it was just 10 to 12 for the country.

These are incredible changes to our environmental assessment regime. It practically does not exist anymore.

(1015) There are also all of the changes to consultation, where people now have to be directly affected. What does “directly affected” mean? If I live 10 kilometres downstream, am I directly affected? If I live 100 kilometres downstream, am I directly affected? If I am a scientist living in Vancouver who has expertise about the Douglas Channel, am I directly affected? There is no definition of this, and it completely curtails who can testify and be a party to these hearings. In addition to the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act in 2012, there were changes to the Fisheries Act.

The Fisheries Act was one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation that we had here in Canada, because it talked about the protection of fish habitats. If we are going to protect our fish and our fisheries, we have to protect our fish habitat. That makes sense. In 2012, the protection of fish habitat was taken out of the legislation. What does that mean? An hon. member: Incredible. Ms. Megan Leslie: It is incredible, Mr. Speaker. Now we are not protecting fish habitat. We are protecting fish, but not all fish.

We are only going to protect fish that we name, and they are going to be fish that are of commercial significance, first nations significance, and recreational significance. An hon. member: What about all of the other fish? Ms. Megan Leslie: What about the other fish, Mr. Speaker? That is a great question. They are not protected. What about the fish that the protected fish eat? They are not protected. If we talk to anybody at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, they cannot tell us what fish are on the list. It does not exist. They do not know which fish are protected. It is a secret.

Secret fish are being protected. Their food stock is not being protected. An hon. member: It is a conspiracy. Ms. Megan Leslie: It is a conspiracy, Mr. Speaker. We are not protecting fish. We can destroy their food source, we can destroy their breeding grounds, we can have a fish with three heads and that is okay, as long as we do not kill them. We can kill a lot of fish, just not the protected fish that do not exist and that are secret. It makes no sense that we have done this to one of the greatest environmental protections that we had. We did a study on terrestrial conservation. Why?

We do not want to talk about fish habitat because it agitates the Conservatives when people come and say that it was a bad decision, that we are not going to have a fishery anymore if we do not protect fish habitat. We have a very narrow study on terrestrial habitat. The terrestrial habitat conservation in Canada report that came out had no mention of fish habitat. I will say that the New Democrats were crafty. We talked about that liminal space between the terrestrial habitat and the marine habitat, and we managed to get some soggy land in some of the testimony.

We asked, “What about that soggy area in between the lakes and the land?” That soggy area can sometimes be fish habitat. We were tricky and we managed to get in some important information about fish habitat. We have a supplementary opinion to this report. It is a dissenting opinion that is on the record. It is worth a read. It is two pages. I want to point out that one of the things we said clearly was that there is no greater threat to our ecosystems or barrier to habitat conservation than climate change.

There was significant consensus from witnesses on the need to address climate change issues in order to protect our biodiversity, and to design strategies for habitat conservation and the preservation of biodiversity in the context of a changing climate. The Conservatives can control the reports. They can control the outcome. They can control what it is that they say happened at committee, but they cannot change committee witness testimony. They cannot change the fact that we had witnesses saying that we need to address climate change if we are going to do anything about habitat conservation in Canada.

(1020) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the almost standing ovation from the NDP caucus for the member's speech. We can see that they are quite excited about this issue. However, one could ask why they would not be as excited about the numerous other agenda items that are before us, and the many other concurrence reports. That is not to take anything away from the issues of the environment and conservation. Those are very important issues, and I do not question that. I enjoy the opportunity to debate on a wide variety of issues, including this one.

However, in going through the many concurrence reports, there are a number of them that are very significant. I would love to see more discussion and debate on concurrence. When we think about the environment and conservation, and when it comes to ranking priorities, I wonder if the NDP members feel that this particular motion of concurrence would have been a good opportunity to talk about a very topical issue in Canada today, which is the northern gateway pipeline. Is this something that we should try to facilitate more debate on here today, given the impact it would have on our environment?

Conservationists are very concerned about this issue. However, I could not help but notice, given how big an issue it is, that the member did not make any reference to it and the impact that it has on conservation here in Canada. The member might want to provide some feedback on pipelines.

(1025) Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I will answer it, but I first want to get to the point on why I moved a concurrence motion on this topic. Any chance we have to talk about climate change in this House is a chance that I will take. We have a Minister of the Environment who, until I asked her a direct question in the House after her appointment, had never publicly uttered the words “climate change” that we can find on the record. Therefore, I will take any moment I have to talk about climate change, which I think is the most important issue facing us today.

When I was appointed the environment critic by Jack Layton, I asked what my mandate was. He said, “climate change”. This was the thing I had to work on. It is the most important thing. However, there are other important things going on, and the question about pipelines is relevant. One thing I did not talk about in my speech was how agitated the Conservatives get any time someone talks about the Species at Risk Act. It is like they visibly start to twitch, because they do not want to talk about that act, which is directly related to pipelines, and oil and gas exploration generally.

If we look at the sage grouse, I think there are 12 left in Alberta. Why? It is because they need big spaces to roam, and those big spaces are being interrupted by oil and gas development. If we look at something like pipelines, the fact is that they can bifurcate the existing grazing area of caribou, which is a species at risk. However, the Conservatives do not want to talk about this. When we talk about conservation, especially terrestrial conservation, we have to talk about the full ecosystem, which includes animals.

I think that we did miss an opportunity to talk about the impact of pipelines on our conservation efforts. Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Halifax , in her very eloquent speech on the environment, touched on a link between the existence of species and our existence, such as the fact that certain fish are not listed as protected but they are the food source for other fish. She also mentioned the fact that caribou lands are being threatened, which threatens the existence of caribou, which threatens the existence and livelihood of our first nations brothers and sisters.

I would love it if the member could take a moment to expand on that theory. Our colleagues from across the way seem to feel that it is okay not to think about the big picture, to just kind of pull a few things that make money out of the works of nature and everything else can go to blazes, as my grandmother would say. I hope that is not unparliamentary language. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber for his question and also for his incredible advocacy on environment in this House. He stands up for the interests of his constituents.

They care very much about the environment, as does he. The member brings up a good point, about the fact that it is not about a species. It is not about a tiny tract of land that we can protect. It is about these full ecosystems. As I said earlier, how can we protect a fish if we are not protecting its habitat and if we are not protecting the fish that it eats or its other food sources? There is a chain here, and we have to look at things in this chain, in this holistic way. Speaking about fish habitat, we heard very quick testimony at committee during those omnibus budgets on changes to the Fisheries Act.

We heard quick testimony. We were sitting until quite late at night. There was a limited amount of time and a limited number of witnesses we could actually bring to testify. However, we brought those witnesses. Some of them, representing incredible science-based organizations, said that the answer is no. The answer is not making an amendment to this. The answer is no; this change cannot be made, about protecting fish habitat. We did the responsible thing. We moved amendments. I cannot remember how many hundreds, but there were hundreds of amendments. Not one was accepted. Not a single one was accepted.

We do our due diligence on this side, but unfortunately the Conservatives are not listening.

(1030) Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the passionate speech from my colleague, as well as all the work she does for the environment and with the environment team. I wonder if the member could comment on—when we form government in 2015, because the Conservatives are considered an endangered species nowadays—what she would put top of mind, along with climate change? I would also like to note that there are a lot of students here and youth in the galleries listening to us.

I know environment is very top of mind, preserving our country and making it a better place, making sure we do our best and address climate change. I wonder if the member could comment on what she would do as environment minister, potentially, in 2015. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, that makes me a little shy. I thank my colleague for the great work she does, standing up for her constituents here in the House. We sit close to each other, and she talks to me a lot about environment, the hopes and passions of her constituents around the issue of environment.

In 2015, first up on the endangered species list would be Conservative MPs. It is easy enough to talk about some of the big-picture visionary things we would do. For example, we would put a price on carbon; we would bring back the ecoENERGY home retrofit program; we would take that $1.3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies, which do not need our help to make money, and we would transfer that money to the new, incredible, innovative start-ups in the green tech industry.

Why are we subsidizing companies that are making billions of dollars, and not giving that leg up to those great new start-ups in the green tech world that will help us make the transition to the green energy economy? Some of this is a little tougher. When it comes to CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, would we bring back the old bill? There were actually problems with the old bill, so we would make sure we consulted with people, consulted with scientists, and consulted with experts, and took that evidence before we made those decisions. It will be tough. Mark my words.

Government has done a fantastic job of absolutely gutting our scientific capacity. It is going to be hard. I do not know that we have the scientific capacity right now. We need to start by rebuilding that scientific capacity and then taking that information and actually making changes to legislation. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) moved: Motion That the debate be now adjourned. The Deputy Speaker : 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1110) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 221) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit 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 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 Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Connor Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 133 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Eyking Foote Freeland Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Lamoureux Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie MacAulay Marston Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat Regan Saganash Sandhu Scott Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Trudeau Turmel Valeriote -- 85 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings under the rubric “motions”.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) moved: Motion That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-27,

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to allow members of the RCMP to qualify for the priority hiring program. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about this important veterans and RCMP veterans issue. I would like to say right at the beginning that I am very fortunate to be sharing my time with the extraordinary member of Parliament for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant .

The government shut down the debate on the environment, and it seems to want to shut down the debate on veterans. The Conservatives should actually be listening attentively. An RCMP veteran named Eric Rebiere, from Bath, Ontario, said yesterday that the government is discriminating against veterans by offering different groups of them different benefits packages. The article, which has been carried across the country, says the following: “I feel like a second-class veteran.” This is an ex-Mountie speaking. I am just going to read for the record the

article itself. It is from Kingston, Ontario, and is dated yesterday. It states: A retired Kingston-area RCMP officer is calling for the federal government to stop what he calls "discrimination" between different groups of veterans. Eric Rebiere, whose 24-year career in the federal police force ended in 2006— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, if you could get some order in this House, it would be appreciated. The Speaker : I know we just had a vote, and sometimes it takes a few minutes to clear out the room. However, we are on to another item of business.

For those of us who need to carry on conversations with a colleague, it would be more respectful to the member speaking to the House if they carried on those conversations outside the chamber. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

(1115) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more respectful to veterans and to former RCMP officers as well. Eric Rebiere, whose 24-year career in the federal police force ended in 2006, two years after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after taking

part in NATO policing missions in Croatia and Kosovo, said the government should have one standard for all people who served in military operations, including RCMP officers who volunteered for policing missions.“They have created sub-classes of veterans, and that is discriminatory under the (Veteran) Charter”, Rebiere said. “To say we are not veterans is an insult”. At a rally on Parliament Hill earlier this month, Rebiere spoke about how the RCMP has for more than a century participated in Canada's military ventures.

Like other retired RCMP officers, Rebiere is covered by the Pension Act and receives monthly payments, but can't access many of the programs the Canadian Forces veterans have. Eric Rebiere pointed to

Section 4 of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, which requires the ministry to be responsible for “the care, treatment, or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces” and “of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war”. What we have also found among veterans themselves is great support among veterans organizations that have felt often under attack by the government. We have seen the closing of so many veterans offices that the cutbacks in services to veterans have been quite appalling.

I know on this side of the House that particularly the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore have been at the forefront in standing and saying that it is unacceptable. What we need to do is put in place a full array of services for our veterans, but that is not what is happening, and veterans are aware of that. Even at the Royal Canadian Legion's Dominion Convention in Edmonton on Tuesday, members voted unanimously to amend the Legion's definition of a veteran to include RCMP members and peace officers who serve in special duty areas.

There is support from the veterans organizations themselves to say that veterans organizations should include RCMP veterans. What the NDP motion of instruction is stating is that we instruct the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs “that, during its consideration of Bill C-27,

an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces) , the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to allow members of the RCMP to qualify for the priority hiring program.” This is no small thing. As Mr. Rebiere has said so eloquently, RCMP veterans are treated even worse than veterans by the government. It is an appalling state.

Just two weeks ago, as I was leaving Parliament Hill to go to the airport to take a flight home, I came across a group of Canadian veterans standing at a table in front of Parliament Hill on Wellington Street. They were selling T-shirts to raise funds for their services. Look at that picture for just a moment. Because of the Conservatives' slashing and cutting of veterans' services, we have veterans selling T-shirts to try to provide services. These are people who put their lives on the line for Canada.

These are people who have said that they are willing to do anything to reinforce and defend Canadian democracy, yet Conservatives are forcing them to sell T-shirts to provide for services. I can think of nothing more despicable and nothing more hypocritical than the Conservative government's actions in the cutbacks to veterans' services and the closure of veterans' services offices right across this country. The hallmark of the government is treating our veterans with disrespect, and we see that constantly.

(1120) They are willing to be there when there is a photo-op. They are not willing to be there when it counts, which is where the NDP is every day in the House of Commons fighting for veterans and saying that veterans have the right to be treated with due respect by the Conservatives and have the right to a full array of services when they have been willing to put their lives on the line for their country. In my riding there is a veterans hospital, George Derby Centre. It is another one of the veterans hospitals that have been subject to cutbacks in the services offered to veterans. I see veterans regularly.

Some of them are my friends. When I see the cutbacks being put in place and the services not being offered to the same extent they were even a few years ago, it saddens me. That is why New Democrats are saying today that we want to engage in a vigorous debate, rather than having the debate shut down, as we just saw happen in the debate on the environment. My seat mate, the member for Halifax , spoke very eloquently about the environment. We wanted to engage the government on the environment, and the government said no, it was not going to talk about the environment in the House of Commons.

Now we have a debate on veterans' services and on expanding the scope of Bill C-27 to allow members of the RCMP to qualify for a priority hiring program. Our hope is that instead of the government shutting down debate, which is the only thing it seems to be able to do these days, it will actually engage in what is an important debate. Mr. Rebiere was very clear that what is needed is the provision of services for RCMP veterans that match the services offered to veterans. New Democrats go even further.

We would say that the services offered to veterans need to be expanded and enhanced, and the cutbacks have to stop. It is fair to say that this motion of instruction, if Conservatives are going to be consistent in what they have been saying, should receive the support of the Conservative members of the House so that they provide RCMP veterans and veterans with the full array of services that should be the entitlement of those who have been willing to put their lives on the line for their country. When the bill was first introduced, New Democrats said that Bill C-27 simply does not go far enough.

It overlooks entire groups of veterans. We thought that in principle, it was a good start, but that is only a first step in providing the full array of services that need to be provided to veterans in this country. We are saying today that we indeed need to expand the purview of Bill C-27 so that RCMP officers are included. Eric Rebiere, a 24-year veteran of the RCMP, says that he feels like a second-class veteran.

When there are veterans outside Parliament Hill selling T-shirts to try to provide some semblance of service because of the cutbacks by the government in terms of veterans' services, it is fair to say that veterans need to be treated better. That includes RCMP veterans. That is why we are offering the motion of instruction today. We hope it will have the support of both sides of the House so that RCMP veterans are no longer treated like second-class veterans and are included within the scope of Bill C-27 . Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the government knows it has let go, either through attrition or outright dismissal, some 47,000 employees from the public service of Canada. Conservatives know that there is a freeze in hiring right now in the federal public service. They know that their existing bill does not meet the same criteria as the bill in the United States, which allows for more preparation and training not just for public service jobs but for private sector opportunities, where so much of the growth is in Canada.

Can the member help Canadians understand why the government would persist in putting forward what is clearly an incomplete bill? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa South for his question. I have worked with him often in committee and I quite like his approach when it comes to legislation. He is aware that this government has botched more pieces of legislation than any other government in Canadian history. It has had more pieces of legislation thrown on the floor of the House of Commons and subject to a record number of closure motions.

I think the member would perhaps try to defend it, but the former Liberal government, which had nearly 70 motions of closure in the course of its mandate, pales in comparison. This government has had 75, which is why it is being condemned by a number of journalists, saying the government simply does not believe in democratic debate. However, the problem is this. The government has had more bills rejected, more shoddy product quality, because the bills it puts in the House of Commons are rejected, certainly by the courts. There has been a record number of rejections by the court.

They have also been rejected by Canadians, as my colleague mentioned. The reality is that the government has had to produce more pieces of remedial legislation. That is a product recall. It botches the first bill it puts on the floor, then it has to introduce another bill to fix the errors in the first bill. Therefore, my answer to the question from the member for Ottawa South is quite simple. The government does not respect the legislative process and that is why it has botched so many bills. In this case, it means that veterans are going to be more poorly served because the government did not do its homework.

(1125) Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I respect the theme of my colleague's comments about looking after our veterans and RCMP officers, but I do take issue with the truthfulness of some of the comments he made about supposedly closing offices all over the country. These issues have been dealt with on the basis of expanding the number of services. His comments about our cutting back funding for veterans issues are totally untrue. Since 2006, we have added some $5 billion, new dollars, to veterans program services and support for veterans and their families.

The rhetoric is really inflammatory when we misinform, miscommunicate, and also convey false information to those who are most vulnerable and most affected by some of these issues pertinent to veterans, their families, and their well-being. I will be as crude as he has been with respect to commentary. I would suggest that, if he and his party pay back the $1.17 billion in respect to the misappropriated funds, we could probably do a lot more for veterans and the RCMP. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, you have about 45 seconds. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, I have 45 seconds to say this is exactly why veterans say they are being treated with such disrespect. That statement comes from the minister who, a week and a half ago, was running away from Jenifer Migneault, who just wanted to speak to him about the services that her husband, who is a serving member of the Canadian military, was not receiving. All she wanted to do was speak with him, and he ran away. That shows both the arrogance of the government and also its complete lack of respect for veterans.

In New Westminster, right outside city hall, are the names of two members of my family who gave their lives for our country. I believe, as do all New Democrats, that veterans should be treated with respect, and it should start with this minister. The minister should be— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. [ Translation ] Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for moving this motion in the House.

Not that long ago, we voted on a bill that completely overlooked RCMP veterans, who should be included and treated as such. Unfortunately, they are too often forgotten. They were once again completely overlooked in Bill C-27 . That was one of our misgivings about that bill. I would like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for moving this motion that we had been discussing for a few days. Eric Rebiere, an RCMP veteran with 26 years of service, spoke out during an interview with Elliot Ferguson from QMI Agency.

He said he was outraged at how services were provided to him and that the government was not treating retired RCMP officers as full-fledged veterans. I would like to read my colleague's motion in order to explain it to those watching at home: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-27,

An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces), the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to allow members of the RCMP to qualify for the priority hiring program. RCMP veterans have been completely left out of this bill. This huge gap shows that this bill is incomplete. I am unhappy with another aspect of this bill, which is that it has created even more classes of veterans. There are World War II and Korean War veterans who have access to health care still for some time. Ste.

Anne's Hospital, near my riding, is destined to be transferred to the province, when it provided very good services to World War II and Korean War veterans. They are obviously aging, and there are fewer and fewer of them. Why not change the eligibility criteria and open this hospital to all veterans? That is what veterans groups are requesting. They say they are all veterans who served under the same flag. Why always make classes of veterans who do not have access to the same services and the same health care? It is completely unacceptable that RCMP veterans have been completely left out of Bill C-27 .

The government should have considered them and stopped this tendency to create classes of veterans. We support the veterans ombudsman, who has been asking for years that the government stop creating classes of veterans and instead place them in a single veterans group. That is the approach we want to take in the House. The official opposition is asking the government to move in that direction, as all veterans and the ombudsman are requesting. Mr. Rebiere says that he is absolutely outraged at the way services are provided to RCMP veterans, because they are full-fledged veterans.

We are asking that they not be left out, which is what this bill does. They have been completely forgotten, which is why the motion by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster asks that they be included.

(1130) The motion asks to find a way to include RCMP veterans and allow them to qualify for the public service priority hiring program, just as other veterans groups have been included. Mr. Rebiere is left with the impression that the government does not consider retired RCMP officers as veterans. He says he is completely outraged, and rightly so, at being treated like this and never getting the same services as other veterans groups. I will read an excerpt from the article.

I think it is very important. [ English ] A retired Kingston-area RCMP officer is calling for the federal government to stop what he calls "discrimination" between different groups of veterans. Eric Rebiere, whose 24-year career in the federal police force ended in 2006, two years after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after taking

part in NATO policing missions in Croatia and Kosovo, said the government should have one standard for all people who served in military operations, including RCMP officers who volunteered for policing missions. (1135) [ Translation ] The ombudsman said, and Mr. Rebiere echoed this as well, that RCMP veterans do not get the same services and that is absolutely disgraceful. To come back to the subject, Bill C-27 was already incomplete since it followed Bill C-11 , for which we had only one or two hours of debate. That bill was incomplete and dropped and then was replaced with this one.

We think that Bill C-27 is also incomplete since it completely excludes RCMP officers. For an officer like Mr. Rebiere, having access to public service jobs could be very beneficial, which is understandable. He could continue to serve his country in the public service. This would be especially beneficial to those with post-traumatic stress disorder. These are people who are no longer able to work in the military or the federal police service. If they could bring their expertise and skills to the public service, that would be very beneficial.

If they also had access to the public service priority hiring program, they could pursue their career. That perhaps could have been the case for Mr. Rebiere. The public service actually has a number of jobs for our soldiers and also for RCMP officers, who have been left out of this bill. We are asking the government to agree to our request and find a way to put RCMP officers on the priority list, which, for the time being, is for veterans only. We are hopeful that this bill will pass and come into force very soon. It would be completely unacceptable to exclude RCMP officers.

They must also be included so that they can continue their careers. Many are forced to continue serving in the RCMP, without being totally employable and able to effectively serve the public as RCMP officers. They could continue to do so in the public service. This is an entirely reasonable request. We are asking the government to vote in favour of this important motion and find a way to also include RCMP officers. In future bills, we will also ask the government to try to limit the number of groups of veterans to only one.

We really believe in having only one group of veterans instead of creating divisions and more classes of veterans, as Bill C-27 does. Let us have only one group of veterans. They all served their country in the same way, so why give certain benefits to one group of veterans and forget about the others? That is completely unacceptable. It is fair to treat all groups of veterans equitably and in the same way. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. First, I would like to speak about cuts. The minister said that there were no cuts, but that is not true.

The head office of the Department of Veterans Affairs is located in Charlottetown. This office now has far fewer employees to serve veterans, and the same is true of other offices across the country. It is completely false to say that no cuts have been made. (1140) [ English ] The question I want to pose is with respect to the view of the government with respect to RCMP veterans. We know there was a class action lawsuit launched by Dennis Manuge against the government with respect to the clawbacks of their disability benefits.

We know that at the same time that class action lawsuit was commenced, a companion lawsuit was commenced by RCMP veterans who were in the exact same situation. The Conservatives settled the case with Dennis Manuge after they lost at the Federal Court. They refused for months to include the RCMP vets in that settlement and made the them wait for several more months before finally bringing them to the table. What does it say about the view of the government with respect to the status of RCMP vets in the eyes of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Government of Canada? [ Translation ] Mr.

Sylvain Chicoine : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intelligent question and comments. I have the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, with the member for Charlottetown . He is very knowledgeable about veterans issues, and he made intelligent comments about the cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada. The number of case managers is being cut, and the people who are left in those positions are being given more files. If memory serves, in the recent past, case managers used to handle 35 cases and now they handle about 40.

They are responsible for more files and they have less time for veterans. They also have less time to figure out which services veterans are entitled to. In my opinion, veterans have not been receiving very good service in recent years. I will now respond to the question about the RCMP. RCMP veterans are treated differently than other classes of veterans. The veterans in the class action law suit initiated by Dennis Manuge won their case, and the government agreed to reduce the disability benefits of those who are receiving retirement pensions. RCMP officers are in the same class.

They have also launched a class action suit. However, the government does not want to apply the same rule. RCMP officers continue to be the victims of discrimination, when a settlement was reached in the Dennis Manuge case. This is further proof that the government is treating veterans who were members of the RCMP differently than veterans in other classes. The government is not treating all of our veterans in the same way, and that is completely disgraceful. Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In his speech, he mentioned Ste.

Anne's Hospital. We have worked together on matters related to this hospital. This is a very important hospital, located on the West Island of Montreal, between his riding and mine. Last weekend, I met with an employee of the hospital. The employees are very concerned about the situation. This is a clear illustration of the government's lack of respect for veterans. Veterans are not being accepted at this hospital, even though we are told that the hospital will shut down services because there are not enough clients.

People who would like to have access to the hospital deplore the situation, just as current veterans do. Our veterans are afraid of losing the services they are entitled to. I thank my colleague for showing his solidarity with the employees and users of Ste. Anne's Hospital. Mr. Sylvain Chicoine : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for the work that she does for veterans and the employees of Ste. Anne's Hospital, who are indeed very concerned about the situation.

Three years ago, the government announced that the hospital would be transferred to the province, under the pretext that there are fewer and fewer veterans who have access to the hospital, given that it is reserved for World War II and Korean War veterans. Instead, the criteria should be changed to open this hospital to all veterans who might need hospital services. In fact, this is an excellent hospital, and I have had the pleasure of visiting it. Veterans receive wonderful, outstanding services there.

However, since it is half-empty, the criteria could be changed so that those spots would be available to any groups of veterans who need long-term care. This would be a good alternative to transferring the hospital to the province. (1145) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) I move: Motion That the debate be now adjourned. The Deputy Speaker : 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 Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1220) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 222) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke 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 Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hoback Holder Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire McColeman McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock O'Connor Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Sweet Tilson Toet Trost Trottier Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer -- 130 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Angus Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brison Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Eyking Foote Freeland Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Julian Lamoureux Latendresse LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie MacAulay Marston Martin Mathyssen May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Murray Nantel Nash Nunez-Melo Pacetti Papillon Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Sandhu Scott Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Sullivan Thibeault Tremblay Trudeau Valeriote -- 81 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried. Presenting petitions. The hon. member for York South—Weston .

Petitions Canada Post Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, residents in my riding have continued to register their objection to the loss of home mail delivery by signing a number of petitions that I am tabling today. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plan for reduced services and to explore other options to update Canada Post's business plan.

Cadets Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first petition is for the Minister of National Defence concerning the Valcartier cadets and an explosion that occurred in 1974, killing six cadets and injuring some 60 others.

The petition is signed by a number of residents of Quebec. [ Translation ] They are calling on the Minister of National Defence to ask the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman to investigate this situation and to make recommendations to the government on how to help these former cadets. [ English ] It is an important matter. Permission has been granted. The 40th anniversary of this explosion is July 30 of this year.

Canada Post Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns Canada Post. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject Canada Post's plans for reduced services and explore other options to update the crown corporation's business plan.

(1225) Impaired Driving Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am here to present two petitions on behalf of constituents who are concerned about the lack of tough laws when it comes to drinking and driving. The petitioners would like to see tougher laws and the implementation of a new mandatory minimum sentence for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. In particular, they would like an offence of impaired driving causing death classified as vehicular manslaughter.

Cell Towers Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the petitions I am presenting to the House today are signed by my constituents in Guelph as well as by Canadians across the country. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to allow cities, local residents, and politicians to make their own decisions when it comes to the installation of cell towers. They are concerned that we still do not fully understand the health impact of emissions.

They indicate that there must be advance consultations with residents within a 1,000-metre radius so that the people most significantly impacted can have a say. Specifically, the petitioners are asking Industry Canada and the Conservative government to reject proposals for the installation of Rogers Communications cell towers at the intersection of Alma and Crimea Streets in Guelph. I look forward to the government's response.

Canada Post Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition signed by 1,000 residents of my riding of Scarborough Southwest who are opposed to the cuts to Canada Post. The petitioners are opposed to their postal worker neighbours losing their jobs. They are offended at the impact these cuts will have on seniors and people with disabilities. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada and Canada Post to reverse these devastating cuts and find better options so they can keep their home mail delivery.

Sex Selection Mr. Brad Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed mostly by residents of Vancouver. The petitioners note that millions of girls have been lost through sex-selective pregnancy termination. They call upon Parliament to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective abortions.

Canada Post Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table yet another petition regarding the devastating cuts in service and the huge price increases at Canada Post. I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of many concerned Canadians. I look forward to the government's response. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many signatures it will take for the government to listen.

I am presenting another petition today signed by hundreds of people who are calling on the government to reverse the decisions made at Canada Post and to find new means to finance this crown corporation instead of cutting services and constantly managing downsizing.

[ English ] Emergency Protection Order Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. Two of them are very similar and are with respect to the greater sage grouse in Canada. The petitioners request the Government of Canada to rescind this strategy and to rescind the emergency protection order.

Endangered Species Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present with respect to the Species at Risk Act. The petitioners, citizens from right across Canada, ask for the Species at Risk Act to be rescinded and for it to be replaced with something that encourages voluntary implementation.

Canada Post Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with respect to the drastic cuts at Canada Post, which will eliminate door-to-door delivery, close post offices, and drastically increase postage rates. The petitioners, who are from Prince Edward Island, indicate that Canada Post is a public service that needs to be protected. They call upon the government to reverse the cuts and to look at ways to innovate.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first petition is signed by many members of our community on behalf of Jozsef Pusuma and his family. They were human rights activists in Hungary who, due to very poor legal representation, had their case mishandled. They are asking to stay in Canada until the Law Society of Upper Canada continues and finalizes an investigation into the conduct of their lawyer.

Rail Transportation Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Second, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many members of my community who are calling for safer rail cars, especially the DOT-111 cars, in our community. The petitioners want to know what is being transported. They want these cars diverted from our area, if possible.

National Day of the Midwife Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Third, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with many signatures. It calls for May 5 to be designated as the National Day of the Midwife in recognition of the tremendous contribution to maternal and newborn health that midwives make.

(1230) Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present, on behalf of constituents, a petition whereby they note that an Environics poll has indicated that 92% of Canadians are against pregnancy termination for sex selection purposes. The petitioners call upon this House to condemn discrimination against girls caused through gender selection pregnancy termination.

Falun Gong Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is from literally hundreds of residents throughout Ontario, particularly in the Toronto area, calling for action to protect the human rights of those in China who practise Falun Dafa or Falun Gong. We know that many of them are imprisoned unfairly.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from residents of my own constituency on Salt Spring Island. They are asking for the government to reverse itself on Enbridge and on approval of the so-called northern gateway risky pipeline and tanker scheme.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions protesting the elimination of postal delivery at Canada Post. I do not need to remind members that home delivery will be eliminated in three municipalities in my riding: Lorraine, Rosemère and Bois-des-Filion. This same government supports keeping seniors at home, but it is depriving them of this rather essential service. I am presenting these petitions to protest this situation. Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by more than 150 Canadians who are opposed to the elimination of mail delivery. The elimination of mail delivery in urban areas will affect more than five million households, and the most vulnerable members of society, people with reduced mobility and seniors, will suffer directly.

Mining Industry Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by many of my constituents who are calling on the government to create a legal ombudsman mechanism for mining, to ensure that Canadian mining companies operating abroad are held accountable to local populations.

Canada Post Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of citizens who are opposed to cuts at Canada Post. I should also note that hundreds, if not thousands, of people in my riding have contacted me to say that they are concerned about these cuts. The cuts will have serious consequences, particularly for seniors and people with reduced mobility. I am pleased to be presenting this petition. Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to present a new series of petitions.

They have been signed by people in my riding, Sudbury , who are opposed to the Canada Post service cuts. This is not the first time I have presented such petitions, and it will not be the last. The Conservatives' changes to Canada Post will have a significant impact on people in my riding and across Canada. This is an unfair, unjustified and arbitrary decision. [ English ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition with 600 names from people across the Lower Mainland in Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster, and Burnaby.

All of them are protesting the impending service cuts to Canada Post. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to reverse those cuts in services announced by Canada Post and to instead look at innovation within the postal service so that it can be a profitable national delivery service, as is the case in pretty well every other industrialized country. These hundreds of British Columbians are asking the government to reconsider the cuts, stop the cuts, and start offering home delivery service.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 498 will be answered today. [ Text ]

Question No. 498--

Mr. Matthew Dubé :

With regard to the children’s fitness tax credit, do Canadian Heritage or Sport Canada have studies in their possession measuring the impact that this tax credit has on the level of sports participation among young Canadians and the impact that it has on parents’ decisions to register their children in physical activities that are eligible for the tax credit?

Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, to date the Department of Canadian Heritage is not aware of any published studies that measure the impact of the children's fitness tax credit on the level of sports participation among young Canadians and on parents' decisions to register their children in physical activities that are eligible for the tax credit. Members should please note as well that the Department of Canadian Heritage has not conducted any research in this area.

(1235) [ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 489, 490, 491, 492, and 496 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 489--

Hon. Carolyn Bennett :

With regard to the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) commissioned by the International Joint Council (IJC): (

a) what input or comment did the government provide, through any department or agency, during the comment periods for the two stages of the report; (

b) what documents have been produced by any departments or agencies in preparation for or as a result of the IUGLS report, including the date and authoring department or agency of each document; (

c) for each year since 2006, what measures have been taken by the government to mitigate falling water levels in the Great Lakes, broken down by department and agency; (

d) what measures have been taken by departments or agencies as a result of the recommendations in the IUGLS; (

e) what measures are being considered by departments or agencies as a result of, or in relation to, the IUGLS; and (

f) what documents have been produced by any department or agency with regard to existing or future economic or environmental impacts of volatile water levels in the Great Lakes basin, including the date and authoring department or agency of each document?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 490--

Ms. Hélène LeBlanc :

With regard to government funding in the riding of LaSalle—Émard, how much was provided for fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, broken down by (

i) department or agency, (ii) name of initiative or program and its description, (iii) date, amount and name of recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 491--

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency since January 1, 2013, for each contract, what is the: (

a) vendor's name; (

b) reference number; (

c) date; (

d) description of the services provided; (

e) delivery date; (

f) original value; and (

g) final value if different from the original value?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 492--

Mr. François Choquette :

With regard to Health Canada’s study on neonicotinoid pesticides: (

a) what is the mandate of the study; (

b) when will the study be completed; (

c) will the results be released publicly and, if so, how will they be released; (

d) will the study include public consultations and, if so, (

i) with what groups, (ii) where, (iii) when; (

e) will the study include case studies and, if so, (

i) which case studies will be chosen, (ii) will the case studies cover the decline in the health of insect pollinators; (

f) will part of the study include the impact of the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on the decrease in insect pollinators; (

g) who will have access to the final report of the study from among (

i) the public, (ii) government departments and agencies, (iii) ministers; (

h) which (

i) groups, (ii) departments (iii) organizations, (iv) scientists, (

v) regions, (vi) groupings; (vii) towns, (viii) municipalities, (ix) provinces and territories will be consulted; (

i) when determining the scope of the problem, will the study take into account the (

i) direct, (ii) indirect, (iii) cumulative impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides; (

j) which pesticides will be studied; (

k) what impacts will be studied in terms of (

i) the economy, (ii) municipalities (iii) communities, (iv) Aboriginal peoples, (

v) human health, (vi) animal health, (vii) aquatic flora, (viii) aquatic fauna, (ix) terrestrial flora, (

x) terrestrial fauna; and (

l) what are the titles of the studies on neonicotinoid pesticides undertaken between 2004 and 2014?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 496--

Hon. John McCallum :

With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, what is: (

a) the number of all positions authorized through Labour Market Opinions, broken down by (

i) region, (ii) National Occupation Code; and (

b) the number of all temporary foreign workers, broken down by region and National Occupation Code, employed by (

i) any government department, (ii) any government agency, (iii) any Crown Corporation?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6,

An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-6. Third reading Mr. Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North. I know this may be out of order, but I would like to take a couple of seconds to acknowledge my staff who are here today in the gallery. I would like to thank my constituency staff for the wonderful work they do in the constituency. MPs are very busy. We would not be able to do our jobs unless we had our constituency staff to help us out.

That is across party lines in the House. I have been waiting to speak to this important bill. Last night I was here until midnight, because of the scheduling, and I am here again this morning. It is an opportunity for me to voice my concerns on behalf of the constituents of Surrey North. Unfortunately, over and over again throughout this session the government has been moving time allocation motions. It is basically shutting down the debate and prohibiting the opportunity for members of Parliament to represent their constituents and bring their views to Ottawa.

That is what we on this side of the House, the NDP members, like to do. We like to bring the views of our constituents to the House so that they can be heard. Unfortunately, this is the 76th time that time allocation has been used. Unfortunately, Conservatives do not believe in bringing forward the views of their constituents. Time after time, they do not speak to some of these bills. A number of Conservative members do not speak to these bills. Maybe they do not want to bring the views of their constituents into the House. I believe what we are brought here to do is to represent our constituents.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed to do that not only on this bill, but on many other bills that have been introduced in the House. There have been 76 time allocation motions. The Conservatives have tried to ram through every bill that has come before us. Omnibus bills containing some 500 pages have been brought into the House and the Conservatives have put time allocation on them. It prevents not only NDP members but Conservative members as well from bringing forward the views of their constituents. This bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is important.

Cluster munitions are little explosives that are dropped and burst into thousands of mini bombs. They cause great damage, not only when they are dropped, but many years afterward as well. I have seen many times on TV where children are playing with these explosives and they get hurt. Some 98% of those injured by cluster munitions are civilians. People are not only injured during conflicts, but many years after as well. It is the civilians who are impacted the most when cluster munitions are used. Canada participated in the Oslo process and worked with other countries to bring forth this convention.

This was right after the signing of the treaty to ban land mines which took place in Ottawa. We had an opportunity to bring other countries together to show leadership on this very important issue of cluster munitions, where we could make a real impact around the world and ensure that these kinds of things are not used against civilians, children and women, to make sure that they are not hurt by these explosives. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has failed time after time. There was a time when Canadians were viewed around the world as peacemakers.

Canadians were viewed as people who would bring the world together. They would negotiate between different countries to bring them together for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have seen the deterioration of our reputation around the world.

(1240) There was a time when Canadians were proud to wear the Canadian flag pin on their lapels. Citizens of other countries would wear the Canadian flag on their backpacks when travelling around the world. We were viewed as a peaceful country that brought people together, instead of what we have seen from the Conservative government, which is divisive and forceful attitudes, and empty rhetoric. We have always been viewed as people who have helped countries. We look at the work of CIDA that was done many years ago. We helped poor nations. We helped nations come together. That is where we had our influence.

We were out there helping many nations around the world. We had influence. We brought countries together for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have seen the deterioration in the CIDA funding that we provide around the world. It is now tied to businesses. It is tied more to mining companies or oil companies rather than humanitarian causes for which it was originally intended. That helped us have influence around the world to bring those countries together. What has happened over the years? We pulled out of Kyoto.

We were supposed to be the leaders in bringing countries together to deal with climate change. I know the Conservatives do not like the term “climate change”. They rarely use it. This morning, the member for Halifax spoke about the environment, and that we should have a debate about the environment. She pointed out that Conservatives rarely use the term “climate change”. There is scientific research behind it, and people all around the world know about it, yet some of the members from the Conservative side do not even want to use the term. They deny there is such a thing as climate change.

We had an opportunity to show leadership in that regard. The damage to our reputation has been severe. The UN Security Council is very powerful. We have had a seat on it on a rotating basis every year since the UN Security Council was formed, but this year we lost that seat. We did not even run because we knew we would lose to some other country, and we did lose. We did not even ask to be on the Security Council. That is how much damage the Conservative government has done to our reputation around the world.

The UN Security Council was a place where we played an important role with all the work we have done as parliamentarians and as Canadians to bring countries across the world together for peaceful purposes. Under the Conservative government, we have lost that seat. That is the record of the government over the last six to eight years, and it has been downhill ever since. We had an opportunity with this bill, Bill C-6 , to repair some of the damage done by the government. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed in this regard.

Some of the experts are saying that the Conservatives' legislation to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world, that it undermines the very spirit of the convention it is supposed to implement. This is what the world is saying. We had a great reputation as peacemakers and world leaders in bringing countries together, but now we have taken some steps backward. Not only did we not ratify the Kyoto agreement, but we also do not have a seat on the Security Council.

Now the world is saying that we have an opportunity to be positive and show leadership around the world, and yet this particular legislation on cluster munitions is a step backward.

(1245) People around the world are saying that this will set a precedent for other countries to also undermine the regulation or banning of these explosive, deadly munitions that hurt people. Again, 98% of the injuries are to civilians. Despite the strong opposition of a majority of participatory states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an

article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. That is a troublesome issue. That is a very troublesome

article that Canada actually championed and negotiated to include in the convention. Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problem lies in clause 11. We heard this last night, and I am saying it again this morning. I think it is important because clause 11 establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. We know what happens when there is a broad list of exceptions; it sort of guts the bill.

I have used these words before with most of the legislation that the government presents, but we could drive a truck through this legislation which has been so gutted by these broad exceptions. In its original form, this clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess and/or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention, and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. China, Russia and the U.S. are not signatories to the convention. This is where we could have used our influence around the world.

We could have brought countries together to persuade the countries that have not signed on to the convention to eliminate and ban the use of cluster munitions. The 98% of the people who are hurt by these munitions are civilians. We could help these people around the world. This is where leadership comes in. Time after time the Conservatives have failed not only on the international stage but also on the domestic stage to show leadership in the areas where Canadians want their government to show leadership.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported Canadians and international civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely with the government, in public and through direct dialogue, to encourage improvements to this legislation. We were successful in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions at least by Canadian soldiers. There was a small give on the part of the Conservatives. However, other loopholes remain. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will be superficial at best.

Indeed, Bill C-6 may even be damaging, as I pointed out earlier, by establishing an international precedent for opting out and exceptions. Therein lies the problem. The Conservatives entered into the process on the Convention on Cluster Munitions and came back with a whole bunch of exemptions. Exemptions are basically loopholes that allow for cluster munitions to still be used. We have seen this over and over. In order for Canada to be a leader on this around the world, we need to close these loopholes. We need to work with other nations, our NATO allies, our Norad allies, and the UN.

We need to work with all these international organizations to bring the countries on board so we can look at banning these explosives that hurt civilians, including children, around the world. What do the Conservatives do? They basically leave huge loopholes in the bill and that will not help.

(1250) As it currently stands, Canada's legislation will be the weakest of all countries that have ratified this convention. Unfortunately, with the government's approach to international issues, where it could take a leadership role and had shown leadership many years ago, it has failed to live up to that leadership. Canadians expect the government to live up to that leadership. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed Canadians again. This was an opportunity for them to show that leadership and, again, they failed. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comments with regard to international leadership. The government has been able to demonstrate leadership on that file. My question is related to the fact that Canada played such a strong leadership role during the 1990s in terms of the land mines treaty. Not only did the Ottawa land mines treaty originate in Ottawa but it was then ratified during Jean Chrétien's era. Liberals demonstrated very clear leadership. Not only did we sign it off, but it was passed through the House unanimously, from what I understand. My question is this.

Does the member recognize that the government has not been able to get unanimous support from the House of Commons, which demonstrates a deficiency, and it also took so many years to bring it before us in the House today? Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have not shown leadership on this issue. The member always talks about the Liberal leadership. Canadians know what leadership Liberals have shown. They are sitting in that corner with the little group and Canadians have told them what they have done. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Surrey North for his very eloquent remarks about this bill on cluster munitions and the failure of the government to live up to the promise of many international treaties. Just today, I introduced a motion calling on the government to sign the Marrakesh treaty so that people who are visually impaired can get access to these documents. Can the member comment on the importance of signing treaties like the Marrakesh treaty? Mr. Jasbir Sandhu : Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of things we need to do. The Conservative government has failed.

In 2015, New Democrats will take those initiatives to bring honour back to Canada. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : It being 12:54 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 16, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. 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. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

(1255) Rouge National Urban Park Act Hon. Ed Holder (for the Minister of the Environment) Bill C-40. Second reading moved that Bill C-40,

An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour and a privilege for me to speak in support of the bill to establish Rouge national urban park in the greater Toronto area. This park celebrates and protects, for current and future generations, a diverse landscape in Canada's largest metropolitan area. It offers engaging and varied experiences.

It inspires personal connections to its natural beauty and rich history and promotes a vibrant farming community. In close proximity to 20% of Canada's population, the park includes more than 10,000 years of rich human history. The national park would increase the size of the regional park by 25%, making it more than 13 times the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver and 16 times the size of Central Park in New York.

As Canada's first ever national urban park, the Rouge offers an unprecedented opportunity to support all three priorities of our government's national conservation plan: to connect Canadians to nature and to restore and conserve the parks' ecosystems and cultural resources. We can all be proud that this legislation would create a remarkable new entity, one located within Canada's largest and most culturally diverse metropolis. This vast area would be an extraordinary mix of natural, cultural, and agricultural lands.

Given its close proximity to one-fifth of Canada's population, the park would be easily accessible for people in the greater Toronto area. This legislation would establish the Rouge national urban park as a new model of protected area in Canada. The park owes its very existence to local visionaries and stewards, citizens, organizations, governments, and countless volunteers. Our government is proud to pay tribute to the nearly 30 years of hard work and determination in building one of the largest urban parks in the world.

We also want to acknowledge the over 100 provincial, municipal, aboriginal, and community stakeholders, and thousands of members of the public, who contributed to the vision and plans for Canada's first urban national park. As hon. members will observe, the bill provides a new framework that would enable Parks Canada to manage the park's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources and to recognize the opportunities and challenges that its urban context brings.

Home to nearly 1,700 species of plants and animals, several of which are rare or threatened, Parks Canada would apply its world-leading expertise in conservation and restoration and work with partners to ensure Rouge's ecosystems, plants, and animals are cared for, maintained, and restored for present and future generations. The Rouge national urban park act would provide broad regulatory powers to address all aspects of park management. A flexible management approach is needed to meet future infrastructure.

The minister of the environment, through Parks Canada, would be able to protect and present this unique place that encompasses deep river valleys and glacial features, thousands of species of plants and animals, farmlands, archeological resources, built heritage, and cultural landscapes. I want to emphasize that the park's tradition of agriculture is a unique feature among Canadian protected heritage areas. The presence of working farms would be integral to the future success of this park. People would continue to live and work on the park's agricultural landscape, as many families have done since the late 1700s.

The national urban park status would also bring a new sense of security to the park farming community. Parks Canada would become the landlord of all existing leases on transferred lands and is working closely with the farming community to develop a lease structure that supports long-term farming. There is a real potential for visitors to connect with farming as it exists now, as well as opportunities for new types of farming to serve the growing and increasingly diverse population of the greater Toronto area.

The legislation would ensure that all these natural, cultural, and agricultural landscapes are protected and managed in an integrated way to the benefit of Canadians, now and for generations to come. In fact, the bill would give the Rouge the highest level of ecological protection it has ever had. The management plan would permit the minister to present a comprehensive conservation approach. This would be based on the most up-to-date science expertise and experience, drawn from the entire system of national protected areas.

The approach to management planning would strive to maximize the ecosystem health of the park by maintaining and restoring its native Carolinian and Mixedwood Plains forests, and wetland meadow and aquatic ecosystems. The approach to the ecosystem health envisioned in the bill for the Rouge would take into account the park's increasingly urban surroundings and the working farms, roads, rail lines, and hydro corridors. The bill recognizes that this dynamic urban and agricultural context has long driven change, both within and around the park, and it would continue to do so.

(1300) The agency would therefore manage the park, but in an adaptive way, maximizing ecosystem health in these ever-changing conditions. Working with people living next to and in the park would be an essential component of the management approach. The park lessee community and the park stewardship volunteers would play an important role in maintaining ecosystem health, visitor experience, and cultural heritage. Our government's long-standing commitment to first nations involvement in protected heritage places would also play an important role in this park.

The new status for the Rouge would facilitate first nations celebrations of their historical roots in this park. The bill contains a provision that would respect traditional renewable resource harvesting activities by aboriginal people. The bill would also respect the rights of aboriginal people in the event of any future agreement for the settlement of land claims. As the House knows, our government made a commitment in the 2012 budget to invest more than $143 million over 10 years and $7.6 million annually thereafter to make Rouge national urban park a reality.

This is a commitment we reasserted in the 2014 budget. Among other things, this investment would make possible a protected area that is both larger and more strategically situated than the existing park. Increasing the park's size would also help advance the goal of connecting Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Moreover, with the creation of the Rouge national urban park we would expand the level of experiences that visitors have in the park. Residents of the greater Toronto area and all Canadians would be able to explore more areas of the larger park.

This might inspire them to visit more of Canada's heritage places. As I mentioned earlier, the creation of the Rouge national urban park supports Canada's national conservation plan. I would like to take a few minutes to explain how this plan will work. The plan responds to a clear message from Canadians that they care deeply about the natural environment and want to enjoy and conserve it for future generations. The plan aligns and bolsters conservation efforts across this country.

It protects the environment while supporting a growing economy and makes concrete and tangible progress to conserve and restore Canada's lands and waters and connect Canadians to nature. The launch of the plan is an opportunity to continue to work together to conserve Canada's rich natural heritage. Many Canadians are already working to conserve and restore Canada's lands and waters.

This includes all levels of government, aboriginal groups, environmental organizations, and the private sector, as well as many Canadians at the local level including landowners, land managers, community groups, and individuals across our great country. The national conservation plan celebrates collective efforts to conserve the environment. It also invests $252 million toward concrete and targeted actions on conservation. This investment over five years will support and expand successful initiatives, and also broaden work through new activities.

The plan built on the announcement on the 2014 budget including measures to invest in national parks, conserve recreational fisheries, encourage donations of ecologically sensitive land, and expand recreational trails. The national conservation plan's vision is to contribute to a stronger Canada, a country that cares about the conservation of its national heritage and where citizens can enjoy the beauty of Canada's environment from coast to coast to coast.

The plan focuses on action across three priority areas: conserving Canada's lands and waters, restoring Canada's ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature. The first priority, conserving Canada's lands and waters, aims to safeguard and enhance biodiversity and ecosystems through conservation and stewardship actions. The second priority is about restoring degraded ecosystems. Once restored, these ecosystems provide clean water and habitat for wildlife and are essential for the protection and recovery of species at risk.

The plan also includes $50 million in funding to expand support for landowners, aboriginal communities, agricultural producers, conservation and community groups, and other partners to voluntarily implement measures to restore and conserve essential habitat and vulnerable species. Stakeholders have reiterated that voluntary conservation and stewardship efforts are critical to achieving Canada's conservation objectives. These restoration actions complement existing efforts by the federal government such as the cleanup of contaminated sites.

(1305) With this in mind, the national conservation plan's third priority is to connect Canadians to nature. This work will leverage existing successful initiatives to help foster an appreciation for nature and build a community of stewards among Canadians of all ages. Investments of $9.2 million will be made to improve public access to protected areas and green spaces, focusing on those areas located in and near cities. To conclude my remarks, the creation of this unique park, the Rouge park, will be another milestone in our government's renowned history of heritage protection.

Since we formed government, we have created two national marine conservation areas, three marine protected areas, three national wildlife areas, one national historic site, and two national parks. This does not include the Rouge national urban park. It also does not include the bill we tabled last week in the House to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve in the Northwest Territories. We have done more than any other government. In fact, the total area of lands we have protected in this area is more than twice the size of Vancouver Island.

The Rouge park's urban setting would offer exciting unprecedented opportunities and would connect Canadians to nature, culture, and agriculture. Nowhere is there greater opportunity to showcase and share our natural and cultural heritage than the greater Toronto area, which is home to millions of urban, new, and young Canadians. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker it is an exciting idea to create a national park in an urban space. I have been waiting for this legislation, because it has been promised for a while.

I have to say I have been waiting for the speech, because the bill was just tabled on Friday, the departmental briefing was yesterday, and I have not even had time to do a proper analysis of the bill; so I was really looking forward to the speech today to figure out some details about it. I am very disappointed that the minister is not the first to speak to this. I am also disappointed that more than half the speech was about the conservation plan and not about this park. I have so many questions, but this is the question that I would love to have answered right now.

We have a National Parks Act that says, “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity...shall be the first priority of the Minister...”. The Ontario Parks Act, where this park is located, says that these areas “...shall be managed to maintain their ecological integrity...”.

The Rouge Park management plan says “The vision of the park has, as its primary focus, the continuing health and integrity of natural systems and habitats....in protecting the ecological integrity of the Rouge River watershed.” The bill before us says, “The Minister must...take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems...”. How is taking consideration of a natural ecosystem actually going to fulfill the focus of all these other policies and pieces of legislation? Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the critic for the NDP did not take the time to actually read the bill.

As she said, it was tabled on Friday. As she quite rightly stated, there was a briefing yesterday, and unfortunately, she could not make the time to attend that. The answers to her questions would have been in there. If she had listened to my speech, she would have actually heard that the bill would provide the greatest protection that the Rouge has ever had in its history. One of our priorities is to make sure we protect our environment for our future. As I said in my opening remarks, this has been a 30-year task.

It has been 30 years in the making between all levels of government, and I must say, I am very pleased and I am very thankful for all levels of government—federal, provincial, and municipal—and all the stakeholders who have come together to make this a reality. This is truly a historic moment for Canada. This is a unique park that is the first one in an urban area. It is a model, and it would be treated slightly differently because of the realities that are presented in the park. For example, there are things called highways. That is called development. There are things called hydro corridors.

There are things called railways. These are developments that are in place. Unfortunately, the NDP, instead of being known as the New Democratic Party, is now being known as the no development party, because it seems New Democrats are against everything.

(1310) Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Government of Canada has a talent for turning what should be a good news story into a dubious, suspicious story about which Canadians have questions. Frankly, I join with the member for Halifax in saying that the Conservatives could have done this in a fashion so people could have read it in advance, and they just possibly could have got more support than they presently have, because all they do is raise suspicions. The first question comes out of clause 4, which is how the park is established. It says that one is supposed to go to the

schedule of the lands that are being transferred, so one goes to the

schedule of the lands that are being transferred, but there are actually three little squibs of land in Markham, hardly amounting to an acre or two of land, which are actually being transferred. However, according to the presentation the hon. member made, we would be getting 58 square kilometres, which some people argue is even less than it should be. Nevertheless, what is actually being transferred right now is three little squibs of land. Therefore, when Parliament passes the bill, that is all we would have.

There is a heck of a lot of land to be transferred from the Province of Ontario, the municipalities, the TRCA, et cetera before this is actually anywhere close to reality. Why present the bill now when you actually have no land, when the bill could have been presented when you actually had land to transfer— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. I do not know how many times I have said this, but hon. members need to address their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the critic for the Liberal Party. At least he took the time to attend the briefing yesterday. However, I do believe his question was answered at the briefing. The member may or may not be aware that when transferring lands from different levels of government, the process requires something to transfer them to. As I have said, we have got agreement with different levels of government to move forward in this way.

The member is correct in that once the act were passed, there would be a certain amount of land, and once there were an official entity to which to transfer the lands, then the other levels of government and other entities would be able to transfer this way. As I said, one of the things we should be very proud of is that this would be 25% bigger than the area that is there now, and it would be a parcel of land 16 times greater than the size of Central Park in New York City. This is historic. Unfortunately, it has taken a long time. I agree with the member's former leader, Mr.

Ignatieff, who said when it comes to the environmental files, “We didn't get it done.” This is other proof that the Liberals did not get it done. We are getting it done for Canadians. Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, recently, the Prime Minister launched the national conservation plan. I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could explain how the creation of the Rouge national urban park would support this particular plan. Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for the question and also for all the good work he does in his community.

He lives in one of the most beautiful places in Canada, and he is very committed to conserving Canada's environment. The Rouge national urban park would support the key pillars of the national conservation plan by taking practical action to connect Canadians to nature, restore Canada's ecosystems, and contribute to the conservation of Canada's lands and waters. Situated close to 20% of Canada's population, the park would provide a great place for Canadians to connect with nature, culture, and agriculture without having to travel far from home.

This park, as I said in my speech, has about 1,700 species of plants and animals, several of which are rare or threatened. Parks Canada would apply its world-leading expertise in conservation and restoration and work with partners to ensure Rouge's precious ecosystem, plants, and animals are cared for, maintained, and restored for present and future generations.

(1315) Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I share our critic's dismay that the minister was not here, because there are some important questions to ask her about letters that local groups have sent and to which they are still waiting for a response. My question is very specific and it has to do with one of the driving forces in the creation of Rouge Park, which is the Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

Jim Robb, the general manager of Friends of the Rouge Watershed said that his group and others have asked the Government of Ontario not to transfer Ontario's lands, which amount to about two-thirds of the park, until standards of past Rouge Park plans are met, because the current plan that the government is putting forward is not even as good as the last one. He is quoted as saying that, “The park they’re proposing is actually not as good as the park they already have.” I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary respond to Mr.

Robb's questions about why the government's current plan is not even as good as the park we have there now. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, just to clarify, for a member to reference that someone did or did not speak to something is acceptable, because that is a matter of public record. However, to make reference to the fact that someone was or was not here is not. I understand that is a subtle distinction, but that is the rule. The hon. parliamentary secretary. Mr. Colin Carrie : Mr. Speaker, again the premise of the member's question is incorrect.

If he had listened to my speech, he would have heard that what we are putting forward would offer the most protection that this area has ever been given. There appear to be certain single-focus groups out there that may or may not have some misunderstanding of what exactly is going on with the new act. The individual he mentioned did take the time to come down and was there on Monday. I had the opportunity to speak with him, and I will be meeting with him in the near future to help answer many of the questions.

I am very pleased that all of these different groups have done a lot of good work to make this day happen. It is unfortunate that the NDP, the no development party, would even be against the development of the Rouge Park in the way it has been agreed upon. This is a historic agreement. All levels of government and all stakeholders are happy about it. The only people who are not, I guess, are the members of the opposition. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-40 , and I thank the minister for bringing it forward.

The name of my constituency is Scarborough--Rouge River. The Rouge River and the largest piece of the current Rouge Park are in my constituency. We are excited about this legislation, but we have some concerns. When I say we, I am referring to myself and thousands of activists who have worked for over 35 years in the community to create the current Rouge Park. We have called for national protection of the park and national park status. It started many decades ago with people literally sitting down on these lands and hugging trees.

Conservatives do not like tree huggers and environmentalists, but these people feel they have to protect the park's natural habitat. Rouge Park is the northern most point of the mixed woodlands and the Carolinian forest. Activists on the ground felt they had to protect this land from being handed over to developers who might plan to build condos. I am privileged to have this park in my community. Many of my constituents have the luxury of living with the Rouge River, or the Duffins Creek or Rouge Creek running along their backyards. The minister has shown concern about who has read the bill and who has not.

I have the bill in my hand and I have read it. My first concern about the legislation is with respect to the

section dealing with management of the park and factors to be considered with the management of the park. Clause 6 says, “The Minister must, in the management of the Park”, and this is the concerning part, “ take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes”. This clause looks like it makes sense on the first reading of it. It looks like it is a responsible measure. However, the language is weak compared to the existing legislation, which has stronger language. Let me read

section 8(2) of the existing Canada National Parks Act. It states: Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks. I note the words “shall be the first priority”. This is far stronger language than what is in Bill C-40 , which is “take into consideration” the protection of natural ecosystems. Let us look at the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.

section 6, which reads: Ontario’s provincial parks and conservation reserves are dedicated to the people of Ontario and visitors for their inspiration, education, health, recreational enjoyment and other benefits with the intention that these areas shall be managed to maintain their ecological integrity and to leave them unimpaired for future generations. The important words here are “shall be managed to maintain their ecological integrity”. Let us compare that with what is proposed in the new bill, which states “take into consideration the protection of natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes”.

The Canada National Parks Act states “shall be the first priority”. In the Provincial Parks Act it is “shall be managed to maintaining ecological integrity”. In the proposed bill it is “take into consideration”. The Conservative government, under the guise of this bill, “an act respecting the Rouge national urban park”, somewhere refers to making life better for everybody in the country as well. That is what the Conservatives do with omnibus bills. I am joking.

I have actually read the whole bill, and it does not talk about the economic action plan once, which is pretty awesome because the Conservatives usually like to talk about immigration, economic action and job creation in every bill. That does not happening with this one. I congratulate the government for not making this an omnibus bill about 75 different pieces of legislation.

(1320) However, what the government is doing is weakening the protection of my and the people's park in Scarborough. That is what I do not like to see, especially because so many people have worked for so long to create this park and to protect it. Just this past year, I have taken groups of schoolchildren and community activists to plant more trees and bushes in this park. We did it to ensure the sustainability and ecological viability of it. We have planted spruce, dark cherry, and bushes.

We have taken students and gone in and removed invasive species that are not naturally occurring in this area, so the trees, bushes, and plants can actually thrive. Activists and people who care about this park are the wardens of it. We are the ones who take care of it. I and my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River want to ensure that the park has higher protection through the creation of national park status, rather than disintegrating the quality of it. I can read more from the Rouge Park management plan of 1994, which was cabinet approved, by the way.

The cabinet-approved the Rouge Park management plan in 1994. I will read excerpts from sections 6.1 and 10.3.

Section 6.1 reads, “The vision of the park has, as its primary focus, the continuing health and integrity of natural systems and habitats.”

Section 10.3 reads, “protecting the ecological integrity of the Rouge River watershed”. Once again these are stronger words than “take into consideration the protection”.

Section 3.2.1 of the Greenbelt plan says: The Protected Countryside contains a Natural System that provides a continuous and permanent land base necessary to support human and ecological health in the Greenbelt and beyond...support biodiversity and overall ecological integrity. All of this is much stronger than clause 6 of the bill, which states “take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems”. Let us look at clause 4 of the bill, which is on the establishment of the park.

The minister wrote or oversaw the writing of this bill. It is funny because the bill lists the purposes of the creation of the Rouge national urban park and the first thing identified is protection. However, when it goes into the implementation and the factors to be considered in the management of the park, there is weak language. Let me read part of clause 4.

It says: Rouge National Urban Park...is established for the purposes of protecting and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the Park and its diverse landscapes, promoting a vibrant farming community and encouraging Canadians to discover and connect with their national protected heritage areas. Once again, the government talks about protection, but in reality it weakens the protection for the park. I would like to talk a bit about the responses since the bill has been tabled.

We know that the idea of the creation of Rouge national urban park was mentioned in a couple of throne speeches. It got us all excited in the community, but then we saw there was no real financial commitment. We pushed and pushed and we saw some financial commitment, which is great. We then saw that somebody from Parks Canada had been assigned. We thought the community would have a say in the creation of what we wanted to call “the people's park”.

I remember that at the first public consultation, as it was called, which happened at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus, the member of Parliament who had the largest piece of the current Rouge Park in their riding was not invited. That was me.

(1325) My constituency is home to the largest piece of the Rouge Park. However, when the government was holding public consultations, I was not even invited.