OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 049 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Friday, February 14, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 14, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 049 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 049 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 049 (Version officielle) 147 049 14 02 2014 2014/02/14 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Government Orders Government Orders (1005) [ Translation ] Northwest Territories Devolution Act Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) moved that Bill C-15,

An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations be read the third time and passed. Bill C-15. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, today is Valentine's Day, so I will share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands .

I am honoured to speak to the House in support of Bill C-15 , the Northwest Territories devolution act, which will really be a major milestone in the history not only of the Northwest Territories, but also of our great and beautiful country. As the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have travelled across the country and throughout the north. I have talked with the warm and welcoming people who live in that vast, amazing and resource-rich territory.

I cannot overstate how important passing this bill is to the people of the Northwest Territories, the people who live and work in that magnificent place. For decades, the people of the north have been asking us to recognize them and give them the power to make decisions about their lands and their resources. Canadians know that governance is a key pillar of our government's northern strategy. As the Prime Minister said recently, “We want to be able to see northerners...masters of their own affairs to the same degree that southerners are”.

That is the purpose of the bill before the House today: to give northerners more control over their own lives. With the passage of this bill, the people most affected by decisions will now be the ones to make them. The people with intimate knowledge of local priorities, local opportunities and local challenges will be the ones to have the final word on how public land is utilized, how water resources are managed, how mineral resources are developed and conserved, and how the environment is protected.

I cannot overstate the significance of this change for the ability of the Northwest Territories to determine its own political and economic future, but do not just take it from me. [ English ] Premier Bob McLeod, of the Northwest Territories, said it best a couple of weeks ago before members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development during committee hearings in Yellowknife. He described the bill as a game-changer for the people of the Northwest Territories.

He went on to say: Devolution promises to usher in a new era of prosperity and opportunity for the people of the Northwest Territories. Supported by an efficient, effective, and integrated regulatory regime, devolution will give northerners the necessary tools and authorities to responsibly develop the Territories' significant natural resource potential, promote investment and economic development, and manage the land and environment sustainably. There is no doubt that passage of this legislation would bring substantial new economic opportunities to the Northwest Territories.

However, the true benefits of devolution will only be realized through a modern, efficient, and effective regulatory system that would make the Northwest Territories a competitive and attractive place to do business. That is why this legislation also puts in place an improved regulatory framework for the Northwest Territories that would ensure that resource develop continues in a manner that respects the environment while ensuring the long-term prosperity of the Northwest Territories for generations to come.

To see proof of economic opportunities derived from devolution and regulatory improvement, one need only look west to Yukon. Since achieving devolution in 2003, Yukon has experienced a second gold rush of sorts, with investors and skilled labourers streaming in from around the world to capitalize on the region's rich resources. As a result, the GDP of Yukon has grown every year for the past nine years and has exceeded Canada's rate of national annual growth eight times out of ten. Last year the territory's total GDP was $2.5 billion, up more than $1 billion since devolution.

The Northwest Territories is equally endowed, as we all know, with impressive renewable and non-renewable resources from the Beaufort Sea to the Norman Wells oil field to the diamond mines of the southern Mackenzie Valley. It is no wonder the Conference Board of Canada predicts that the GDP of the Northwest Territories could climb nearly $5 billion, to $9.6 billion, by 2020. The potential is there.

The potential is there, but as former premier of the Northwest Territories, Floyd Roland, told the Norman Wells Chamber of Commerce a couple of years ago, “The thing about potential is that that is all it is...until we take action and realize it”. The Government of the Northwest Territories has assumed more control over province-like responsibilities, such as highways, housing, health care, and education. The power to manage its land and natural resources is the last step in this long journey.

To quote another great northerner, Robert Alexie, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, “It's been a long road to get here, but well worth the trip”. It has been a long road, and we would not be here today if it were not for the impressive leadership of our Prime Minister and the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Since forming government in 2006, our Conservative government has made the political and economic development of the north one of its key priorities. (1010) [ Translation ] Our government has made tremendous efforts, more than any previous government, in partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal governments to get to where we are today. All northerners should be proud of their accomplishments. As the Prime Minister stated on his annual northern tour in August 2012, “those who want to see the future of this country should look north”.

It is a rare moment that we as parliamentarians are able to participate in such a nation-building moment in Canada’s history and contribute to the culmination of the promise of Confederation. That is what we are being called upon to do here, with the passage of this bill. I therefore urge all members of this House to join with the people of the Northwest Territories in achieving their political and economic aspirations and pass this bill swiftly into law. [ English ] Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the minister's comments.

He knows, as I do, that this bill has been a long time coming. There was a lot of testimony that referred to having the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the bill. People wanted it split. First, could he confirm that he is aware that a lot of people were against having that act put into the devolution act? Could he also tell us whether the government said that if it was not accepted, the government would not move forward on the devolution act?

(1015) Hon. Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that the target date for devolution was 2015. The Premier of the Northwest Territories asked the Prime Minister of Canada to make devolution earlier. However, one of the conditions for ensuring that devolution works to the advantage of northerners in the Northwest Territories was that its regulatory regime be modernized, because we have seen what happened in the Yukon, and we see what is happening south of 60. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to devolve without having a regulatory regime that is competitive.

It should be equal to that of the other territories. We know that in Nunavut, the work has been done. The work continues for Yukon. Devolution will work effectively here if that regulatory regime is amended. That is why we incorporated it with devolution in the bill. I am sure that those who are concerned about-- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. There being only five minutes for questions and comments, we will need to move on to the next speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party recognizes the importance of devolution in certain areas. We talk about our natural resources, land and water management, and the importance of regulations and so forth. By moving in this direction, we are empowering more economic and social activity in a community we care passionately about. I want to ask the minister how important it is that there be follow-through in ensuring that there are sound regulations and so forth, which we heard from the stakeholders, that would assist in the future prosperity of the community. It is something I think we would all like to see. Hon.

Bernard Valcourt : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member echoes what we have been saying on this side of the House and what we heard during the hearings in Yellowknife. The importance of that regulatory system can best be understood if I quote the president of Dominion Diamond Holdings Ltd., Brendan Bell. He said: With respect to the regulatory improvement aspects of this bill, Dominion Diamond is supportive of initiatives to ensure an effective but timely regulatory process.

Specifically, we're encouraged that the Government of Canada is bringing forth changes that will ensure clarity and certainty in the review and assessment of proposed projects by establishing firm time limits for these reviews, similar to limits that exist in other regulatory processes. I submit, with respect to my learned friend, that this is how we can ensure that investors will look favourably at the Northwest Territories for investment. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, the people who are watching may find it curious that the hon. minister, perhaps moved by the sentiments of Valentine's Day, has given me half of his time. Members of the House will find it even more curious to realize that the Green Party alone will be voting against Bill C-15 in this House at third reading, as we did at second reading. I thank the hon. minister for giving me the opportunity to explain our position. To be clear, the leadership on this bill from the hon. member for Western Arctic is nonpareil. I have no interest whatsoever in suggesting that I criticize his vote in favour of the bill.

It is a difficult decision to vote against Bill C-15, and I want to explain why my hon. colleague in the Green Party and I will be doing so. The first part of the bill is unquestionably important, and we would vote for it. It is long overdue. The devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories, as the hon. minister has mentioned, is right. It was of great benefit to the Yukon when that territory had its powers vested locally. It is about time that we have a devolution of authorities to the Northwest Territories.

However, the contentious parts of this bill, as the House will now well know, is that Bill C-15 has inexplicably jammed fundamental changes to the water and resource boards of that region down the throats of first nations. I want to go through some of the history and background on this to underscore how deeply shocking this should be to Canadians from coast to coast, whether they live in the Northwest Territories or not. These are not mere administrative arrangements, or the product of a bunch of civil servants figuring out what is one board, what is two, and what boards should be consolidated.

Rather, these boards are the product of government-to-government negotiations. They are the product of the whole structure of negotiations with the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Wek'eezhii, and the Tlicho. These boards are the result of government-to-government negotiations in good faith. There is a tremendous, unassailable, and incontrovertible body of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada that first nations' rights are inherent and protected in our Constitution, and that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure those rights are not infringed upon.

Therefore, if a government wishes to ignore treaty obligations and unilaterally rewrite agreements that have stood for some time, we would have to think there is a crisis of some sort that has brought this administration to run counter to the law, to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Haida, Delgamuukw, and Marshall cases. It is rare in any area of law that we would have so many cases that all say the same thing, which is that the rights of first nations are not a fringe benefit but fundamental to first nations. They are part of our Constitution.

It is the obligation of the Crown to protect those rights, those treaties, and ensure that first nations are adequately consulted, particularly in cases of resource development. That is where I find this bill so extremely disappointing. There is no case to be made that there is something wrong with the way the current boards are working. In fact, it is to the contrary.

Many witnesses before the Bill C-15 committee said that the only evidence one can find is with regard to the timeliness and predictability of permit approval through the boards, which this act will unravel, and that they have been more predictable, more timely, and more efficient than other boards of a similar type in the region. In other words, if industry wants predictability and to know that its applications will be dealt with on a timely basis, the status quo is the gold standard. This proposal is a way to unravel something that is working.

It will create an untimely, unpredictable environment for resource applications of all kinds. It is also a fundamental insult, and there is no word I can find other than “insult”, to the notion that the Crown negotiates in good faith.

(1020) We had the budget tabled this week, and it made reference, at page 145, to the fact that this administration recently commissioned Mr. Douglas Eyford as a special representative on the issues that affect my constituency a great deal: proposed pipelines and tankers on the west coast. These are opposed by most of the first nations that could be impacted by that development.

The budget tells us: The Government has made public the Special Representative's final report and is closely reviewing the recommendations made in all four areas: building trust, fostering inclusion, advancing reconciliation and taking action. I do not know how we can have an administration that so clearly talks out of the both sides of its mouth. The Prime Minister did not need to commission Mr. Doug Eyford to tell the administration about the status of first nations' rights in this country. They are constitutionally enshrined.

There is a direct relationship with the Crown, going back, in some cases for centuries, but certainly decades, and the law is not unclear. Mr. Eyford, predictably, told this administration what people know, that we cannot ignore first nations' rights. We cannot approve things and call it consultation, if we merely hold meetings where first nations say they absolutely do not agree. In this case, it gets even more shocking. The only source of any recommendation to do away with these regional boards was a report made some time ago and referred to generally as the McCrank report. Mr.

McCrank made a number of recommendations, and one of them was to restructure the board system. It was one of many recommendations. For some reason, this one, to which the first nations immediately expressed opposition, is the one that has been fast-tracked. The McCrank report also said this: ...a fundamental restructuring...would require the agreement of all parties to amend the comprehensive land claim agreements...

In other words, the very source of the recommendation upon which the contentious and unacceptable parts of Bill C-15 are based came from someone who understood it himself, and who included in the body of his report, “Don't do this over the objections of the first nations themselves”. These boards are the result of land claims negotiations and they represent the good work of the Crown. We should not come along later with a bill like Bill C-15 and dismantle that over the clear objection of the Tlicho, of the first nations in those communities. The fact is that the boards have worked well.

I want to quote something from a letter from the Tlicho government to the department. This was from last fall. It makes it very clear about what would happen if Bill C-15 goes through. They wrote that under the proposed amendment to the Mackenzie Valley Regional Management Authority, the scenario would be changed: The connection between First Nations and the regional boards would be substantially eviscerated under the larger board.

Additional requests for consultation and environmental assessment, and even judicial review in court of the larger board's decisions, would likely become the norm, thus further undermining the system's predictability and timeliness. This is where it becomes inexplicable. We have heard that a number of industry groups themselves let this administration know that they had no quarrel with the way the current board system is working. In fact, they praised it. On the empirical evidence, to which nothing has been adduced to suggest there is any dispute on this point, the current board system works. It is timely.

It is efficient. And, it is respectful of the first nations on whose territory these developments would go forward. The hon. minister quoted the diamond mining sector which said that they want to hurry up with things. I have heard nothing from any industry group that suggests they do not feel confidence that the current regime works for them. If there has been behind the scenes lobbying from larger developers who do not want to take the time to be respectful with first nations, then it is not just an option for this administration, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to send those developers packing.

The government's obligation under the law, its fiduciary responsibility, is to protect first nations' rights, not gut them, as Bill C-15 would do.

(1025) Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member, and I am disappointed that she has indicated she will vote against this historic piece of legislation that would devolve powers to northerners living in the territory. I would like to ask her how she can do that.

She may often be misguided in her statements, but how can she intellectually affirm honestly in the House that this a breach of the treaty, which the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement has become, and just like the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement have become? These treaties specifically envisage the very piece of legislation that we have here today. Sections 25.4.6 (

a) of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, and 24.4.6 of the Gwich’in agreement, and the Tlicho agreement,

section 22, says expressly that where legislation establishes any other land and water board with jurisdiction in any area larger— Since this is in the treaty, how can she claim in the House to all Canadians that it constitutes a violation of our treaty obligation and

section 35? I suggest—

(1030) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands . Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, did I hear unparliamentary language at the end of that question? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I did not hear anything unparliamentary. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I heard the word “dishonest”, but perhaps I misheard it. I am not going to assert anything based on my own opinion. I am relying on the words of the first nations themselves.

To answer the minister's question, I would ask how he can approve this bill when Bertha Rabesca Zoe, whose title is law guardian of the Tlicho government, in reference to Bill C-15 , said: Our input is being ignored, our interests are not being accommodated, and the changes to the regulatory scheme in the Amendments will, if implemented, fundamentally undermine the balance struck in the Tlicho Agreement about how we will have a say about the most important issue—the use of our lands and the effects of those uses on our way of life. I look at the words she has written and I see a future court case.

The accommodation of interests are requirements of the law. The Conservative administration is setting a course to chaos in resource development. Where it wants to creating a steamroller, it has created a road wrecking team. [ Translation ] Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I found it very interesting. Clearly, some points warrant our attention. I have a question for her, to follow-up on what the minister is proposing. I also think he should have said it in a more respectful manner.

As everyone knows, the Supreme Court has said many times that the federal government is obliged not only to consult the first nations, but to accommodate them as well. In my opinion, that is what is missing here. There were consultations, but the accommodation does not seem to be on par with what the Supreme Court requires of the government. I would like my colleague to share her

interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings. Has the obligation to consult the first nations truly been respected? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine . I totally agree with him. It is clear that the Supreme Court requires the federal government to consult the first nations of Canada and to respect and accommodate their interests and rights. It is clear that in this situation, and since the institutions are the product of negotiations, this is not acceptable.

This is against the law and it violates the right of the first nations to have a government that makes unilateral changes. That is why in the future, everyone will understand that it is against the law. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Manicouagan . I rise today to debate Bill C-15 at third reading. It is definitely an honour to have the opportunity to express the views of my constituents and my party on this bill. We worked very hard on this bill at second reading stage in committee and at report stage in the House of Commons.

We are now at third reading stage, and we have repeatedly pointed out that this bill has some shortcomings. However, there are some very worthwhile elements. The devolution of power should have taken place a long time ago. I am very pleased that this bill will finally give the people of the Northwest Territories the rights that people in the provinces do not give a second thought to. The fact that they will be able to share in the wealth more directly than before this bill was introduced is reason to celebrate.

I would like to quote Robert Alexie Jr., president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, to emphasize one element of the bill. He said it better than I could. (1035) [ English ] He said, “We don't have to fear devolution. It's a new beginning”. He is absolutely right. It is a very exciting time to be in the Northwest Territories, and devolution has certainly been a very long time coming. We have not seen devolution of powers to the Northwest Territories for decades.

The last time we saw it was in the 1980s, when we had an agreement where we were going to devolve certain jurisdictions: education, health care, transportation, and renewable resources, in this case specifically forestry and wildlife. At that point, we transferred some powers. The debate then was that perhaps the Northwest Territories was not prepared to go ahead with devolution, just not ready. My reading of what was happening at that time was that, in fact, it was more than ready.

It was just that the federal government benefited from the fact that it received a lot of the revenue stream from the exploitation of the natural resources. This bill before us today would go, in a large measure, to addressing that problem. The Northwest Territories would now be receiving 50% of the royalties for the mineral exploration and other surface exploration of natural resources that will happen, and that is a reason to celebrate. The minister himself said that this is going to lay the foundations towards greater economic prosperity for the Northwest Territories, and he is probably right.

However, the minister made some statements that do not really measure up to where we should be. Because he had discussions with corporate citizens, he said that corporate citizens want to see the changes as fast as possible; corporate citizens have been pushing for not only the devolution, but also modifications to the water management boards. That is the issue that is really sticky. There are some serious difficulties with this element of the bill.

I find it abhorrent that the federal government, knowing that it has a duty to consult and that it has a duty to accommodate, tells me that the most important thing here is that a company such as Dominion Diamond Corporation is pushing the bill forward, and that is an important aspect of the bill. It certainly is, but so is the fact that many first nations have told us, on many occasions, that the water management boards are working just fine and that they would like to leave them as they are. This bill would modify that, and that is not respectful of those first nations.

I believe that, when it comes to respecting the direction the Supreme Court is giving us, the government has lost its way. I do not think the Conservatives fully understand what the Supreme Court has said on many occasions: that the duty to consult is not simply to set up a web page and not simply to go and hear people, but also to listen to them and find a way, as best as possible, to accommodate them. Corporate citizens themselves have said that they believe that the water management boards, as they stand, are beneficial. Many times, the Conservatives make modifications that are poison chalices.

They propose changes, saying to corporate citizens that they would make exploration and economic prosperity more accessible, with growth rates that would be larger. All of these things may or may not be true. The point here is that we need to find consensus on the ground. We need to address the needs of the people in the Northwest Territories. It is their land and their resources. It is up to them how they are going to be exploited. It is up to them to tell us how we should be helping them move forward with economic prosperity.

It is paternalistic to the extreme that the House of Commons, over and over again, will tell people in other areas of the country how they should be doing their jobs, especially in areas that are their own jurisdiction. The recent example is the budget, in which the federal government simply does not want to negotiate a jobs program with the provinces, a skills training program that is acceptable to the provinces. Instead, the government says to take it or leave it because it knows best.

There is a reason the separation of powers exists in this country, and it is that we know that local people on the ground, generally speaking, know best. We should be helping them build on that knowledge. We should not be imposing our ideological views, and the government, unfortunately, over and over again, seems to think that ideology trumps anything else. That is the wrong direction to take. However, that said, the benefits of devolution are clear. The people on the ground are going to get many benefits out of this bill.

This bill would address needs and requests that have been made of us over years and years, and we are finally in a place where we can bring some of those aspects forward. Those are the elements we need to support in this bill. We know that the Northwest Territories knows best how to manage its resources. This bill, in large measure, would help it manage those resources and keep the benefits of that management and of being able to attract the kind of exploration and exploitation of its natural resources that the people themselves want without having to request that Ottawa ask for modifications in their name.

The fact that they would be able to do it for themselves is something that most Canadians take for granted. Locally, at the provincial level, we do this all the time. In the territories, such as the Northwest Territories, they have not had that privilege, and that is abhorrent. This bill would address that. I am very pleased with that. We need to be in favour of devolution in the House. It is important that we support the bill at this stage, knowing full well that there are difficulties with it and that we need to continue the dialogue with first nations in the Northwest Territories. We have a long way to go.

New Democrats presented ideas in committee and they were rejected. We presented ideas in the House of Commons, to all members in the House, and again those proposals were rejected. There has to be a better sense of dialogue. We cannot keep imposing our views on the territories. This is not going to benefit them in the long run. They know, much better than us, where we need to go. When it comes to the water management boards, I will quote, for instance, Jake Heron, who is a Northwest Territories Métis nation representative.

He stated: It’s very frustrating when you are at the table and you think you’re involved, only to find out that your interests are not being considered seriously. This is not dialogue that we should be hearing. We should be hearing that there is a partnership and that the government is in full and respectful consultation with the first nations. Oftentimes, we simply do not get that sense. The member who spoke before me, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , said it very well when she brought up the comments by Ms. Zoe. I will bring up a quote from Bob Bromley, who is an MLA in that area.

He stated: The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional. ...a single board does nothing to meet the real problem, failure of implementation. These words concern me greatly. We should not be moving forward with that aspect of the bill knowing full well that there is so much opposition back in the Northwest Territories. Devolution is an important step. We need to address that step. It has been too long in coming. We need to move forward with it. I am happy that this bill would address that.

I just wish it were not full of poison chalices.

(1040) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine again for seeing these issues clearly. I think anyone who looks at the bill will agree that the sections that take apart the regional boards are completely in violation of Supreme Court decisions and in violation of the principles of treaty-making. I find it so deeply shocking.

I cannot see any explanation for it other than some sort of back-door lobbying by larger industries that have not been busy in the area before and find that these boards look complicated, as they have not actually worked with them. I cannot see a solid explanation grounded in evidence for forcing through these changes along with the devolution parts that we would all support. I wonder if the member has any theories as to why we are facing such a terrible bill, which is full of “poison chalices”, as the member said.

(1045) Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, we have a government that seems bent on ideologically driven bills rather than science-based, consultation-based bills. We have seen this on many occasions with so many of the bills in this House of Commons since the Conservative government formed a majority. The Conservatives are not addressing the real needs of people on the ground. They address their ideological needs, which is a mistake. In the long run, we are going to pay dearly for those choices. That said, devolution is still important.

We need to empower people in the Northwest Territories to the same degree that we empower people elsewhere in this country. People have the right to make decisions for themselves, and the bill would help address that issue. For that reason, it is worth supporting. However, it is unfortunate that the bill does not address the other concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have brought to us. We need to address the concerns as best we can.

The bill addresses some of those concerns, and we are happy to see that it addresses the major question of devolution, but we are going to have to keep addressing other issues because we have a long way to go yet. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for a very insightful speech on Bill C-15 . One of the things the member mentioned was the way in which particularly the Conservative government tends to ignore local input.

For instance, I wonder if he sees some parallels with the way the Conservatives ignore local input and local priorities in the way the rail service in his area has been treated. I wonder if he sees any parallels with the bill before us on that. Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, I think many people have seen those parallels on so many levels. Again, I underline that sometimes the Conservative government seems to make decisions that are ideologically driven. There does not seem to be concern for making sure there is long-term prosperity in our regions.

There seems to be more concern that certain people benefit from changes, but the vast majority of people are simply going to have to pay for it in the end. The train service in eastern Canada is a great example. We keep hearing that it does not make enough money. Well, I challenge any rail service in North America on whether it is actually making money or not. The question here is why the government seems to be bent on certain decisions more than others. I will raise a question for the government as far as railways are concerned.

Why are we funding a railway between Toronto and Peterborough that has doubtful use when we could be funding railways in other parts of the country that have a proven use? Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support of the devolution agreement, which is obviously very important to the Northwest Territories. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked a question and did not really get a clear answer from the member opposite, and so maybe I could help. The Mackenzie Valley board was looked at from the models they looked at in the Yukon territory.

They had an example of devolution to look back on, and they used those lessons to improve upon the situation they have right now. One of the things that the Yukon does with its regional representation, with the centralized board, is to have district offices in those communities to ensure that they are providing support and input into the board. Therefore, the great people of the Northwest Territories in those communities will still continue to have localized and regional input on a centralized board, which will make the process effective and efficient.

I hope that answers some of the questions that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked. If she would like to talk to me further about the Yukon experience, I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps the member opposite would like to join in on that conversation with me at a later time as well. I would be more than happy to help them understand that process. Mr. Philip Toone : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. Unfortunately, it did not really address anything in the bill, but rather questions for the Yukon. We are talking about the Northwest Territories here.

It is too bad the member did not take the time to address the needs of the first nations in the Northwest Territories. I am glad that he found accommodation in the Yukon, but here we will have to try to find a way to accommodate other first nations, which are outside of his riding. (1050) [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my last speech on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act .

Today I will talk about the capacity for alienation of the collective heritage in terms of aboriginal rights and the practical outcome of the ratification of modern treaties and agreements between the crown and the first nations. I spoke to this bill at second reading about three days ago, so it is still fresh in my mind. Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to talk about a number of topics that are too often ignored or that remain obscure to the Canadian public.

The prerogatives that are exercised in relation to traditional territories, as well as these matters and clarifications, will help elucidate why certain groups raise objections when the government decides to sit down with a band and sign an agreement or document that could potentially alienate or be detrimental to other communities. The case we are talking about today has been challenged by other bands. The Canadian public has noticed a lack of homogeneity, and that is true. Dissent and overlapping claims can lead to opposition when an agreement is ratified with a group or a band.

That is not limited to this situation with the Northwest Territories. We see it all across the country, which is why it is necessary to focus on this today, so that we can shed new light on the issue. I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation was negotiated and there was consent. There are no doubts about this in the case of Bill C-15 and the associated agreement and regulations. A number of stakeholders in committee said as much and spoke about economic growth. We must always keep that in mind. Above all, we are talking about an economic agreement and initiative.

There is no question that this was negotiated and there was consent. However, there are a number of other similar vagaries and problems that we can examine. Our support at third reading also shows that we recognize that this economic initiative is based in negotiations. However, this leads me to the issue of overlapping claims and overriding prerogatives. I often talk about a quasi-proprietary title. This points to the fact that first nations members—even though the title is often collective, it is in fact divisible—enjoy prerogatives in relation to given territories.

In this case, we are talking about traditional territories, and the same is true for me and for the Innu and Naskapi communities of Manicouagan. Traditional territories come with prerogatives for first nations members. When bands are called on to negotiate, there may be a sort of disavowal on the part of community members. It is always important to keep in mind that Indian bands are products of the Indian Act. In my informed view, that is why negotiations and agreements ratified by bands lose legitimacy to a certain extent when members do not fully participate.

It is also important to keep in mind that those titles and prerogatives are divisible even though they are collective. That is why this government should always both consult and seek approval. It must do more than just consult, because consultations are quite restrictive. So far, the Conservatives have demonstrated a rather limited view of consultation, which boils down to taking notes at the bottom of the page and covering up issues that have resurfaced, in order to move forward with their economic development agenda.

(1055) When there is consultation or, rather, when it is looking for approval, the government—or future governments, because I hope that this will be considered by whoever governs next—should first and foremost look for approval from the public, from first nations members as individuals, through a referendum or other democratic means. This would limit opposition and there would be more support from the public. It would be easier for the public and first nations members to support a given initiative, and it is clear that certain initiatives in 2014 do not have that support.

Opposition to economic initiatives, even joint ones, that have an effect on the prerogatives of third parties illustrates the need for the government to recognize the pre-eminence of the quasi-proprietary title that first nations members have to their respective traditional territories. I will also discuss the highly contentious and recurrent nature of the overlapping occupation of territories, and I will talk about the collective, but also divisible, nature of prerogatives that are exercised in relation to the territory.

In light of the prerogatives that are exercised in relation to territories— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order? [ English ] Mr. Ryan Leef : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have been diligently listening to the member's address to the House. We are three, four, maybe five minutes deep into it and I have yet to hear the words “Northwest Territories” or “devolution” mentioned once. We are here to debate that piece of legislation.

The member has introduced that he is now about to talk about land occupation, which invariably will take another three minutes, and I am certain that might run him up to about eight minutes. That leaves two minutes for him to talk about the Northwest Territories devolution act. Hopefully we can hear something about the Northwest Territories devolution. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member. Members may recall, however, that members have a great deal of freedom to express their views.

In this case, the hon. member, early in his comments, drew a comparison to the things that he would be saying, related to the question before the House. I am sure the hon. member will be bringing that around before the end of the time that is allocated to him. The hon. member for Manicouagan . [ Translation ] Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain : Mr. Speaker, our friends across the aisle would do well to take some notes on land occupation, because the lack of support and the general outcry can be felt and heard here in Ottawa, from first nations groups that are more sure of themselves and increasingly bitter.

Furthermore, the government will have to negotiating with them on a day-to-day basis. It should therefore pay attention to these matters related to Indian identity, on the one hand, and on the titles that apply to the lands and land occupation, on the other hand. That is the crux of the issue, the name of the game, and the government should take note. In short, this government would do well to focus more on winning the approval of first nations members and not simply go and negotiate and ratify agreements with band representatives. Once again, let me clarify, they are elected under the Indian Act.

Their responsibilities, their “Indianness” and their jurisdiction are limited to reserve lands. The Indian Act is limited to reserve lands, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, even though, technically, this kind of reasoning does not necessarily apply to the Northwest Territories or Bill C-15 today. However, this is a recurring theme. These things warrant discussion and the entire Canadian population needs to know. When I am in Manicouagan, I personally tell members in my own community that the band council has no authority over traditional territories.

When agreements are ratified, the transparency of which is sometimes negotiated, I tell the members of my community that it is important for them to take a stand and that the government should seek their consent; they should not just be satisfied with an agreement ratified by the government and the band council only. In short, if the government is interested in promoting dialogue and creating a more harmonious environment for dealing with aboriginal issues and disputes, it would do well to focus on these concepts, including the use of traditional lands, which is a key component.

I submit this respectfully. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Manicouagan will have a minute left, if he wishes to take the time, and when the House next returns to debate on the question, he will have his usual five minutes for questions and comments.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1100) [ English ] Dr. Marco Terwiel Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour my constituent Dr. Marco Terwiel, who passed away January 4 in Maple Ridge after a courageous battle with cancer. Dr. Terwiel was a devoted family man, a superb physician, and a committed community member whose impact reached far beyond our community. He was born in the Netherlands in 1937; his training and experience eventually led him to Maple Ridge, where he practised for 31 years. Dr.

Terwiel was a founding member of the local Rotary and an honoured volunteer with St. John's Ambulance. He served as president of the College of Family Physicians of Canada in 1992 and regularly wrote a column for a local newspaper. Throughout his career he was a strong supporter of family medicine in rural and remote communities, so when he retired in 1999, he served as a locum doctor for eight years in Nunavut. I extend my condolences to his wife Lila and his family, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding Canadian who will be greatly missed.

Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, happy Valentine's Day. It is also Have a Heart Day, and as I speak there are children standing on the steps of the Parliament Buildings calling on the government to protect the rights of first nations children. Can we imagine that? Children have to come to Parliament to call on the government to protect children. It has been two years since the House unanimously passed Shannen's Dream motion in honour of the late Shannen Koostachin, promising to close the funding gap for children in schools on reserves, yet children are still waiting.

It has been nine years since Jordan River Anderson died in a hospital far from home while the federal government and the provincial government bickered about who was going to pay for his home care. Despite the promises, our first nations children are still falling through the cracks while the government bickers and denies its legal obligation to children. Young people get it. They are calling on the government to have a heart and live up to its obligations, protecting first nation children.

Canada-Taiwan Relations Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, February 12 marked the annual Chinese New Year celebration hosted by the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, one of the best-attended events on Parliament Hill. The relationship between Canada and Taiwan has never been stronger. This Conservative government waived the visa requirement for people from Taiwan in November 2010, paving the way for increased visits by Taiwan's law-abiding tourists and students, who are welcome contributors to the Canadian fabric.

This year we have seen great progress in several commercial agreements between Canada and Taiwan, including one that greatly increases air traffic. Other discussions have good momentum concerning tax, trade, and investment. I am proud to state that after several years of trying, Canadian producers will now be able to sell bone-in beef to Taiwan. Also, last year Taiwan's parliament created a sister group to our very active Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, which I have the honour to lead. Our group last year paved the way to revive the Terry Fox Run in Taiwan.

I ask all members to stand and join me to salute the friendship of Canadians with a free and democratic people, the people of Taiwan.

Canadian Heritage Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Flag Day. Fifty years ago, in March 1964, a conversation took place at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario, between a native of Alberta, George Stanley, dean of arts at RMC, and a native of Quebec, John Matheson, Liberal MP for Leeds, a conversation that led to the design of the new maple leaf flag. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Lester Pearson, the new flag was approved by Parliament and took effect on February 15, 1965.

To change the most important symbol of a country, to leave behind the old and journey ahead with the new, was a courageous expression of a profoundly optimistic and ambitious vision of Canada's potential, Canada's future, and Canada's place in the world. May we continue to express and journey ahead toward an ambitious vision for Canada.

Young Artists Ms. Roxanne James (Scarborough Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this past fall I was excited to launch my third annual art contest, “A Call to all up and coming Young Artists”. This contest closed in November after receiving dozens upon dozens of submissions from aspiring young artists. With so much excellent artwork and the abundance of talent in Scarborough Centre, choosing the winners proved quite difficult.

Today I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the following artists for their winning submissions: Mathurah, age 12; Hasan, age 12; Arisa, age 11; Nada, age 10; Lucy, age 9; and young Aruveka, age 5. The work of these talented individuals is now on display for all Scarborough Centre residents to see. Their artwork has been included in my 2014 parliamentary calendar and is proudly displayed in my constituency office. I invite all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating these young contest winners from Scarborough Centre.

(1105) [ Translation ] Saint-Placide Winter Kite Festival Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, once again this year, I am looking forward to attending winter festivals in my riding so that I can meet my constituents. All across my riding, communities are participating in all kinds of activities as they take full advantage of the cold, the snow and the ice. This weekend is the 16th edition of Saint-Placide's Festi-Vent sur glace, and I am so excited to be attending again. This is a unique and colourful kite festival on Lac des Deux Montagnes.

The community there is full of people who really put their hearts into things like this. They work hard to stand out and make their region one of the best anywhere. However, they cannot forget that, two years ago, the Conservatives tried to cut funding for this festival. Fortunately, that bad decision was reversed when I explained to them how important the festival is. The whole region benefits from this festival. I invite all of you to come and make this year's Festi-Vent sur glace yet another huge success for young and old alike.

[ English ] NATO Council Secretariat Intern Mr. Parm Gill (Brampton—Springdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great, young, and bright Bramptonian. Jeelan Syed, a 24-year-old, is currently completing his internship at the council secretariat of the NATO headquarters in Brussels. He studied in Toronto and Paris, specializing in international relations, with the aim of serving Canada as a diplomat. In addition to speaking both of Canada's official languages, he also speaks German, Russian, Arabic, Urdu, and Spanish.

While at the University of Toronto, he was president of the francophone student association, promoting bilingualism. Motivated to see people of different backgrounds living together in harmony, he worked on peace-building projects in India, Kosovo, and Morocco, as well as working at the Canadian mission in Vienna, Austria. Jeelan's passion to serve his community and promote multiculturalism continues to benefit those he helps. I invite all members to join me in recognizing Mr. Syed.

Canadian Junior Curling Championships Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2014 M&M Meat Shops Canadian junior curling championships that took place in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's. I would like to congratulate not only all the athletes but also the volunteers and the organizing committee: Greg Thorbourne, Donna Hatt, Melissa Robinson, Paul Fay, Frances Younker, and Bob Wilkinson. The town of Liverpool and the surrounding area rose to the occasion.

The most common statement from all the athletes was “When can we come back to the South Shore again?” I take this occasion to mention another great South Shore athlete, Alexandra Duckworth, who competed for Canada in the women's snowboarding halfpipe in Sochi. Alexandra has made us all proud. Also, since it is Valentine's Day, I would be remiss not to mention the extraordinary story of Bertie and Bill Nickerson, also from Liverpool, who have been married for 78 years. They say the secret of their marriage is that they get along. Congratulations to Bertie and Bill. Finally, to my wife Judy, happy Valentine's Day.

Remembrance of the Ocean Ranger Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, much of the island of Newfoundland is being battered today by a winter storm. It is a sombre reminder of this day 32 years ago when a vicious blizzard struck the province, eventually bringing down the indestructible drilling rig Ocean Ranger in the early morning hours of February 15. Eighty-four men lost their lives. Hearts are always heavy in my province on Valentine's Day. The tragedy of the Ocean Ranger highlights the terrible price we pay as a seafaring people.

It also highlights how fast and badly things can go wrong and reinforces our need for the highest of health and safety regulations. I end with a quote from the great Canadian songwriter Gordon Lightfoot that captures the waiting for word of life or death: “Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours?”

(1110) [ Translation ] Oil Exploration Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Quebec, I am surprised to see that Quebec has finally decided to allow oil exploration to proceed in the province. I hope it continues forward with that plan. Developing our natural resources in Quebec is absolutely crucial to overcoming economic challenges and balancing public finances. I can assure Quebec that the federal government will continue leading by example. We hope that the Quebec government will follow in order to ensure job creation and economic prosperity. It is important to enhance the economic autonomy of la belle province, Quebec.

[ English ] Atlantic Canada Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a valentine's message to our Prime Minister from Atlantic Canadians. Frankly, we are doubtful of his love for us. He puts us down and claims we have a culture of defeat. He lets his friends tell us we are lazy no-goods who do not want to work. He cuts us off from our family and friends by starving VIA Rail. He tells us to be more innovative and diversify our economy, yet there is not one red cent more for ACOA in this budget, the very agency that is supposed to help us to do so.

When he bellies up to his lobster dinner with his buddies or trims his Christmas tree, I hope that he remembers us and how his changes to EI are making it impossible for seasonal workers to get by. I hope he thinks of us every time he hires a young person from Atlantic Canada who, under a crippling debt load, has come west for work. He says he loves us, but we have seen his in-and-out scandal and his robocalls and we are sick of his serial cheating. On this Valentine's Day from Atlantic Canada, please know there is no love lost between us, and in 2015, we will not choo-choo-choose him.

Dr. Roger Tomlinson Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Tomlinson, who passed away last weekend. Born in England but a proud Canadian, Dr. Tomlinson is globally known as the “Father of GIS”, having conceived and developed the world's first geographic information system for the Government of Canada in 1962. His innovation laid the foundation for modern digital mapping and spurred the development of a worldwide multi-billion-dollar industry.

This visionary geographer and high-tech pioneer enabled us to better understand our environment and to better manage our precious natural resources. In 2001 Dr. Tomlinson was named a member of the Order of Canada and in 2013 was promoted to an officer of the order for transforming the field of geography. He was a generous mentor to many. He never lost his sharp analytical edge or his dry sense of humour. I ask all members to join me in remembering a great Canadian.

Small Craft Harbours Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem with small craft harbours. The budget has been continuously gutted by the government over the last five years. In fact, the budget has been cut in half. The government announced funding in its 2014 budget, but is spending none of it this year and only $1 million next year. This is an insult to the fishery and jeopardizes the safety of Canadians. There are harbours and breakwaters across the country that are in dire need of repair, and there is dredging that has to be done to ensure safety and livelihoods.

I call on the government to actually commit to spending this money, not just to make phony announcements and photo ops. Well-kept harbours are critical for our fishing and coastal communities, and I urge the government not to play politics with infrastructure that is so crucial for so many Canadians.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the CBC revealed the names of three NSA employees when its cameras panned across National Security Agency documents. In fact, the CBC has revealed leaked NSA documents that have inadvertently disclosed the names of at least six intelligence workers it never intended to give away. These documents were stolen by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and sold to the CBC by Glenn Greenwald.

Greenwald, the porno-spy, has said he would not publish the names of U.S. intelligence workers unless they were top-ranking public officials. Clearly that is not the case. Not only is this information in CBC's ethically illicit pay-for-news scheme false, but it is jeopardizing the security of individuals whom, unlike the CBC, I will not be naming here today. Why is furthering porno-spy Glenn Greenwald's agenda and lining his Brazilian bank account more important than the public broadcaster maintaining its journalistic integrity?

(1115) Liberal Party of Canada Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians, today is Valentine's Day, but for Liberals it must feel more like Halloween, as ghosts from past scandals are returning to haunt them. Last night Radio-Canada reported on another potential kickback scheme from well-connected Liberal insiders. Under this reported scheme, $1.5 million was deposited by a go-between into a Swiss bank account, an account with the code name “Zorro”. This account was opened just 20 days after SNC was awarded a $127 million contract to refurbish a Montreal bridge.

Who owned the Zorro account? It was owned by none other than Michel Fournier, Jean Chrétien's former chief of staff. Once again Canadians are reminded why they removed the corrupt Liberals from office. After hearing admissions of fraud and Senate corruption, Canadians can do the same to the Conservatives in the next election. Fortunately, people know the NDP can be trusted to deliver better and to fight corruption like Zorro.

The Budget Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we announced economic action plan 2014, which demonstrates our government's commitment to growing the economy, creating jobs, and long-term prosperity for Canadians. However, out of all of the comments made by the leader of the Liberal Party, there was one very interesting and telling exchange. During an interview, the leader of the Liberal Party refused to answer a question as to whether or not he would run budget deficits.

His answer was, “The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself”. I am sorry. Canadians know that a budget just does not balance itself. Although this economic assessment is interesting, they need to expect more from the leader of a G7 country. Would the leader of the Liberal Party admit that his party would raise taxes to balance the budget?

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Rail Transportation Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the French CBC program Enquête exposed the full extent of the Conservatives' tragic leniency towards MMA before the Lac-Mégantic disaster. The company had multiple safety infractions, but the federal government kept giving it special permits to soften the rules. One safety expert said yesterday that the Lac-Mégantic victims paid the price for the cuts. Do the Conservatives realize that there is a cost to neglecting prevention and safety? [ English ] Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, with a lawsuit pending and the investigation currently ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment any further on that. However, we have a number of compliance mechanisms at Transport Canada that have been used. Thanks to this government's Railway Safety Act improvements just a few years ago, we will have the power to rapidly issue more monetary penalties. These provisions are under way. Let me be clear.

When it comes to improving rail safety, and we are looking to do more, it is the NDP that is opposing our ability to get the standing committee on transport out on the road to the Bakken oil fields so that we can make greater improvements to our safety system. She needs to stop playing politics. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the federal officials were aware of MMA's repeated infractions. Some of them wrote down, in black and white, that they were uncomfortable with the idea of allowing the company to operate with just one conductor.

Worse yet, in an email from 2012, a Transport Canada employee expressed concerns about the company not having a system for detecting runaway trains. Why did the Conservatives ignore theses concerns that could have saved lives? [ English ] Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the health and safety of Canadians is this government's top priority. We have taken a number of very significant actions to enhance rail safety. In 2012, we completed more than 30,000 inspections. We continue to hire more inspectors.

We have made an investment of about $100 million in improving rail safety through new information sharing agreements with the provinces, proper classification regulations, and the list goes on. The member will also know that there are permanent rules in place to ensure that with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, there are two operators at all times. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in a Radio Canada report last night, we learned shocking new details about Lac-Mégantic.

A briefing note to the minister obtained by Radio Canada said that Transport Canada let some very troubling practices continue. This led to the occurrence of the accident and could have increased its consequences. Transport Canada knew that this company was breaking the rules and public servants were raising the alarm bells, so why did the minister not act?

(1120) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, far from it. This government continues to take a whole list of important actions. We continue, as I said, to increase the number of inspections of rail to record levels. There were 30,000 inspection in 2012. There was a $100 million investment in our rail safety system. There are improvements to add whistleblower protection for employees who blow the whistle on safety concerns in the workplace. There is the expansion of administrative monetary penalties for a range of additional infractions. Make no mistake.

There is an investigation under way with respect to Lac-Mégantic, one by Transport Canada. If any rules are found to have been broken, we can guarantee that they will face the full extent of the law.

[ Translation ] Committees of the House Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform called public consultations a “costly circus”. However, the day before, the Chief Government Whip was complaining about the NDP's opposition to travel by committees. Can the government tell us whether committee trips are a circus, as the minister says, or whether it is ridiculous to prevent committees from travelling, as the whip says? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the New Democrats do not want to study the fair elections act. They said they would oppose the bill even before reading it. We are trying to improve our electoral system by dealing with misleading calls and fraudulent voting and by protecting Canadians and the power all individuals have to control their democracy. [ English ] Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Democratic Reform called cross-country hearings on the fair elections act a “costly circus”, and his colleague called them a “gong show”.

Yet the Conservatives are happy to propose spending $600,000 on other committee travel. Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tell us why some committee travel is acceptable to him, but travelling across the country to talk about democratic reform is not worth the effort? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act would keep everyday Canadians in charge of democracy by putting special interest groups on the sidelines and rule breakers out of the game altogether. It would crack down on loopholes to big money.

It would stop rogue calls from political imposters. And it would give law enforcement, as the watchdog, sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

Taxation Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, a promise is a promise, except when it is not. Among the many dubious promises made by the Conservatives during the last election was income splitting. Now the promise is “complicated”. Now the promise is that it “needs a long, hard analytical look”, and “I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society”. That was then and now is now. It is Valentine's Day. Will the Conservatives be faithful to the promises they made to their electorate? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I wish my hon. colleague a happy Valentine's Day as well. Once the budget is balanced, our government is committed to greater tax relief for all Canadian families. Only Conservatives can be trusted to lower taxes for families. We introduced pension income splitting for seniors, which the Liberals voted against. As a result of our low-tax plan, the average Canadian family pays nearly $3,400 less in 2014. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am just not feeling the love.

Surely the Conservatives knew before making such rash promises that the issue of income splitting was “complicated”, “very costly”, “highly concentrated” and “targeted tax relief”, and that it would chew up any surplus in a heartbeat. So are the Conservatives going to show their love for their base, and honour their commitment before the next election doth them part? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once the budget is balanced, we will look at all ways of reducing the tax burden on Canadian families.

In fact, since taking office in 2006, we have reduced over 160 different taxes, resulting in savings for the average Canadian family of $3,400 in 2014. We are the only party reducing taxes on Canadian families. The Liberals and the NDP would both raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending schemes. (1125) [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, our system of government requires cabinet to speak with one voice. However, we are currently seeing a worrisome trend. The Minister of Finance says that the government should not keep its promise on income splitting.

However, the Minister of Employment and Social Development says that the Minister of Finance is wrong. On top of that, the Prime Minister does not seem to want to deal with the issue. Now that Canadians' confidence in this government is very low, can the government tell us who is right, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Employment and Social Development ? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, let us talk about economic action plan 2014 and why the Liberals and the New Democrats are opposing a budget that is receiving such strong praise from all across this country.

Here is a small list of those that have praised economic action plan 2014: Imagine Canada, Special Olympics Canada, Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Polytechnics Canada, The Royal Canadian Legion, Canadian Cancer Society, Conseil du patronat du Québec, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Team Sports Coalition, Canadian Arts Coalition, Earth Rangers, Nature Conservancy of Canada— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am confused about the third party's question. About two months ago, the Liberal leader said he was in favour of income splitting. A few days ago, he again said that the idea had merit. I am a bit confused, but I have to ask the government to answer my question. This question also has to do with income splitting. On Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said that he was not sure about the merits of their policy.

A few hours later, the Minister of Employment and Social Development said that his government was determined to keep its election promise. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that, once the budget was balanced, they would perhaps think about implementing this policy. All of a sudden, we found out on Twitter that assistance to parents would replace income splitting. What is the story today? [ English ] Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, once the budget is balanced we will look at all ways of reducing taxes on Canadian families.

Let us talk about budget 2014. The NDP and the Liberals do not seem to believe me when I tell them that our government is getting praise from all across this great country on economic action plan 2014. Let us hear directly from the stakeholders. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada stated, “This is a pivotal moment for research excellence and innovation in Canada”. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association stated, “This announcement demonstrates the government's continued recognition of the importance of the auto sector to Canada's economy….”. Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, he could not answer the question because there is total confusion over there. On Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said: I think income splitting needs a long, hard, analytical look…. Because I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society. Oops, massive damage control at PMO central. The Conservatives even benched the Minister of Finance during question period while the Prime Minister defended his promise on income splitting. Fast forward to yesterday and there are now reports that the Prime Minister may be dropping his election commitment.

Who speaks for the government and do the Conservatives speak to each other any more? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, once the budget is balanced, we will look at all ways of reducing the tax burden on Canadian families. It was our government who brought in pension income splitting for seniors, which the opposition voted against. Let us talk about economic action plan 2014. We are getting praise from all across this great country.

The Alzheimer Society of Canada stated: On behalf of the 747,000 Canadians living with dementia, we are grateful to the federal government for providing the resources needed to carry out important research to better understand how to tackle various forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease.

[ Translation ] Democratic Reform Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when speaking before a committee, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tried to prove that his bill would increase voter turnout among young people. He said that, even though his bill will prevent young people from using a voter card as identification when they go to vote. This form of identification was used by 62% of students. How will he increase youth voter turnout by eliminating this form of identification?

(1130) Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, for decades students have not had any difficulty voting without this voter card. Furthermore, student cards are one of 39 acceptable forms of identification that students can use when they vote. Finally, the fair elections act will force Elections Canada to use its advertising to inform students of the required means of identification. Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister keeps repeating that there are 39 other forms of identification, but the reality is that he is creating obstacles for young voters. The minister mentioned driver licences, but 25% of Torontonians do not have one. He mentioned student cards, but many of those do not indicate the student's address. Does the minister realize that by stopping the use of the voter card he is going to further reduce the participation rate of young voters? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, on the contrary, based on the list used to generate voter information cards, the information for one out of six people is incorrect. One-sixth of the voter cards contain errors and that results in electoral fraud, as we have already seen. There was even a Quebec television program that reported that two people voted twice because they each received two voter cards. This type of fraud is not acceptable, and we are going to eliminate it with the fair elections act. [ English ] Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the House leader's parliamentary secretary told reporters he opposes hearings on the unfair elections act. He is worried that by letting Canadians have their say, it would rally public opinion against his bill. I agree. The more Canadians learn of this bill, the less they like it. Elections belong to the people, not the Conservatives. Why will they not let Canadians have their say on how our elections are run? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have, and with the hearings that will be held before the committee, we will have some more.

[ Translation ] Ethics Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Senate for a bit. Yesterday, we learned that some senators are refusing to co-operate with the Auditor General's review of their expenses. A number of them were appointed by the Prime Minister . It is therefore not surprising that those senators are upholding the Conservative tradition of hiding everything from Canadians. Since the Prime Minister cannot compel these senators to co-operate, can he commit to enhancing the powers of the Auditor General? [ English ] Mr.

Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Auditor General is currently undertaking a review of Senate expenses. Of course, we expect all senators to comply with that review. It is not just us but Canadian taxpayers who are demanding that. At the same time, we are hearing from Canadians that they would actually like to see the New Democrats do what this party has done, and that is post their expenses online so that Canadians can actually take a look at that. This party has, its members of Parliament and senators.

The NDP is refusing to do that for Canadians, and now the Liberal senators are also refusing to do that. Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the fraud and breach of trust charges laid against the senators are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuse of taxpayers by the unelected Senate. We now find that unelected and unaccountable senators are stonewalling the Auditor General's investigation of how the Senate abuses taxpayers' money. This is unconscionable.

What steps will the government take to protect taxpayers and ensure there will actually be penalties for senators who are not willing to be compliant with the work of the Auditor General? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in front of me I have the expenses of Conservative members of Parliament and senators who have actually posted their expenses online.

I looked through the Internet to try to find the expenses of the NDP caucus, but then I was reminded of the fact that New Democrats are refusing to tell Canadians what their expenses are; do as I say, not as I do. NDP members refuse to tell Canadians what their expenses are. We expect all senators to work with the Auditor General because Canadians are demanding accountability of the Senate. That is what they are getting from this side of the House and we will make sure that they continue to get that.

(1135) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is Valentine's Day. I would like to think that the Conservatives would give a bit of love to Canadian taxpayers instead of giving “huggy hugs” to the crooks over in the Senate. That is what has been going on with this party. Yesterday, we find out that a Liberal crony at the Federal Bridge Corporation had $1.5 million moved to a Swiss bank account while he was managing a large federal account for the Jacques Cartier Bridge with SNC-Lavalin. This is a company that has been under numerous investigations.

Let us just look at the Prime Minister 's personal friend Arthur Porter now hanging out in a Panama jail. Will the government open an inquiry into this contract to ensure that no taxpayers' money was illegally sent into the pockets of Liberal cronies? [ Translation ] Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as soon as these allegations were brought to the minister's attention, he asked the deputy minister to investigate.

These are serious allegations against a former president of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated. In closing, I want to point out that Mr. Fournier was appointed by the previous Liberal government. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, one would have to be naive to think that there is no link between the $1.5 million paid by an SNC-Lavalin associate into a secret Swiss bank account belonging to the Liberal president of the Federal Bridge Corporation and a $127 million contract that was awarded at the exact same time.

Friends of the Liberal Party stuffed their pockets, profiting from the collusion and corruption that was running rampant at the time. Will the government launch an investigation to ensure that federal money was properly awarded in this contract? Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as soon as these allegations were brought to the minister's attention, he asked the deputy minister to look into them.

These are troubling allegations against a former president of The Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated. In conclusion, I want to point out that Mr. Fournier was appointed by the previous Liberal government.

The Budget Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the government whether it planned to maintain at least the current level of funding for the Canada book fund and the Canada music fund, which are due to expire in 2015. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the two funds will remain intact for 2014. My question was about 2015, so I will ask again.

Will the government commit to maintaining at least the current level of funding for the Canada book fund and the Canada music fund beyond 2015, when they are due to expire? [ English ] Mr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for this supplementary. We have invested an additional, actually permanent funding of $9 million for a $37 million total for the Canada book fund, an additional $9 million for the Canada music fund, and we have actually added $25 million for the Canadian Council for the Arts.

Now, to the person from the Liberal Party who asked this, twice in a row, he must be so concerned about it, that I want to see him, on budget day, support culture and heritage in this country. [ Translation ] Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the 2014 federal budget contains nothing tangible for women. It contains no incentives for social housing and nothing for universal child care. With respect to access to justice, countless women have fallen through the cracks.

Can the finance minister provide any assurance that women will be a priority in the implementation of his budget? [ English ] Hon. Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has been focused on making sure women have access to jobs and that they can enjoy the prosperity of Canada.

Whether that be young women who now have access to the apprenticeship loan program or whether that be the young women I have met who are out learning skilled professional trades and will benefit from the Canada job grant, we are focused on making sure women have jobs and have a high quality of life for their families. We encourage the Liberals on the opposite side to get with the program, and let us get Canadians jobs.

Fisheries and Oceans Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is telling the media that the DFO library collections are being digitized and blaming library closures on public walk-ins, when it is the government scientists who actually need the information. In a written response to me, the minister said that the department does not have the ability to determine what has to be digitized and there is no record of what happened to most of the library materials. What is it? Was the response to me correct, or is the minister misleading Canadians?

(1140) Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this member does not seem to realize that our library clients are doing their work in a different way. In fact, they are asking for digital material, which is why in several of our libraries they get 5 to 12 visits a year. Sometimes they can go a month before they get another in-person visit. We are consolidating our libraries, investing in making sure our holdings are digitized, and doing the best for taxpayers.

[ Translation ] The Budget Mr. Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is a gathering on Parliament Hill today to commemorate Shannen's Dream, the dream that all first nations children can have access to decent educational facilities, no matter where they live. We wholeheartedly welcome the end of the spending caps on first nations education, but we are wondering why our children will have to wait until 2015 to see any results. Why should first nations children, who have suffered from chronic underfunding for years now, have to wait another year? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was simply going to congratulate the government for making the decision to work with the Assembly of First Nations to finally, for the first time, give first nations all across the country an education system that works. However, we must not put the cart before the horse. We will continue our work with the Assembly of First Nations to draft a bill to be introduced and debated here.

After that, of course, the regulations will have to be developed, and all this will take until next year. [ English ] Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after years of denial, the government is finally admitting to underfunding of first nations schools. Now it is time for action. The Liberals and Conservatives have repeatedly promised adequate funding, but always for later, after the next election. It is a date that never comes.

Today is Have a Heart Day, so will the minister show that he has a heart, announce that he is going to realize Shannen's dream and start providing adequate funding for first nations schools today? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we shall soon see the commitment of the NDP to education on reserves, because this budget has committed $1.9 billion in supplementary funding. I will watch to see if the NDP will support this budget because never before have so many resources been put in Shannen's dream.

[ Translation ] Veterans Affairs Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have become masters at the art of saying one thing and doing another. They promised veterans that their budget cuts would have no impact on the services provided. However, internal documents show that employees were wondering two years ago already how they would be able to provide the same services with nine fewer offices and 800 fewer employees. Why did the Conservatives ignore these alarm bells as to the consequences of their cuts to veterans' services? [ English ] Mr.

Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I understand that math is not necessarily the NDP's thing. Let me explain it for him. Our government has created 600 additional points of service across this great nation. There are now approximately 650 points of service in communities, in neighbourhoods, where a district office did not exist. We are putting points of service where veterans need them the most in the communities.

In the event that a veteran is unable to travel to a district office or is seriously injured, we will send a registered nurse or a case manager to the comfort of his or her home. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what these documents reveal is a government so obsessed with its image that it failed to heed warnings from inside its own department, warnings that government cuts would impact services available. Our Armed Forces personnel and veterans knew this. Staff at Veterans Affairs knew this. Conservatives knew this. Yet the government has spent two years denying the truth.

Would the minister now acknowledge that these cuts do, in fact, hurt veterans and reverse them immediately?

(1145) Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, since coming to office in 2006, our government has invested over $4 billion in additional funding to help Canada's veterans, to provide them the services and the benefits that they deserve. Every single time we have brought forward initiatives to help our veterans, the NDP and the Liberals have both voted against every single measure. We on this side of the House will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans.

The Budget Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing our Conservative government prides itself on, it is keeping taxes low for Canadians and their families. In fact, since coming into office, we have reduced taxes over 160 times, which will save the average Canadian family nearly $3,400 in 2014. In addition to helping families keep more money in their pockets, our government also takes pride in recognizing those who help keep our families and communities safe.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tell this House what economic action plan 2014 does to recognize the contributions of these brave Canadians? Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that excellent question. Search and rescue volunteers are everyday Canadians, our friends and neighbours, who put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. In recognition of their commitment and dedication, economic action plan 2014 introduced the search and rescue volunteers tax credit.

Today in my riding of North Vancouver , the finance minister is highlighting this measure, accompanied by family members of the late Tim Jones, a man who dedicated his life to others, a giant of the North Shore Rescue team, and someone I was honoured to call a friend. I am very proud that our government is recognizing the contributions of people like Tim Jones.

Canada Post Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after the ice storm, Toronto experienced widespread mail delivery delays. It took Canada Post weeks to respond. Constituents from across my riding are still reporting mail delays. I am not alone. MPs from all over Toronto are fielding complaints. When a two-day delivery turns into a six-day delivery, cheques arrive late and bills do not get paid. What is the minister doing to fix the mail delivery delays in Toronto? Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would simply point out that Canada Post Corporation is an independent crown corporation. It operates at arm's length from the government and is responsible for its day-to-day operational decisions, including these. If she has a service complaint, she may want to direct it to Canada Post.

[ Translation ] Science and Technology Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, behind the fine speeches, the Conservatives are waging war against science. According to an internal survey, two out of three National Research Council employees are frustrated by the centre's new mandate. According to them, the Conservatives are wrong to give up public scientific research in order to focus strictly on meeting the commercial needs of industry. Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to their own scientists, who just want to keep protecting the public and the environment? [ English ] Hon.

Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question from the hon. member. Obviously the NDP members do not agree with our government's support of science, research, and technology to power Canada's economy, but let me point out some quotes from some people who do. The chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, David Barnard, says: This is a pivotal moment for research excellence and innovation in Canada.... [Budget 2014] recognizes that a vibrant, innovative and competitive Canadian economy needs a world-class research system.

The president of the AUCC, Paul Davidson says: Today Canada is signalling to the leading research nations of the world that it intends to compete with the best... I hope the hon. member will recognize that and vote with us on the budget.

[ Translation ] Infrastructure Ms. Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, budget 2014 promises $391 million over five years to Parks Canada to make improvements to highways, bridges and dams. Then why does the government not want to invest in the Grenville Canal? Built after the War of 1812, this very important heritage site is quickly deteriorating and needs government funding to be revitalized. Will the Conservatives commit to showcasing this site? If not, was all the commotion around the War of 1812 just an advertising campaign for them? (1150) [ English ] Hon.

Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting our environment as well as keeping our economy strong, building on our record of protecting historic lands. Budget 2014 is investing a significant amount of money in urgent areas, including nearly $400 million to fix dams, bridges, and highways through national parks that are in urgent need of repair.

When the Liberals were in government, they did nothing to maintain the parks and the infrastructure in the parks. Our government is committed to ensuring that our parks, bridges, and highways in our park areas are protected.

Transportation Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are allowing Marine Atlantic, a crown corporation, to jack up ferry prices to Newfoundland again. As of April 1, the cost of the ferry to and from Newfoundland will jump by 3%. Over a three-year period, rates will have risen by 11%. When ferry prices go up, the price of all goods ferried to Newfoundland also go up, and our tourism is hugely impacted. Why are the Conservatives allowing Marine Atlantic to increase rates and punish Newfoundlanders? Mr.

Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the member. The government is doing no such thing. Marine Atlantic is a crown corporation. It is arm's length from the government. It has its own governance structure that makes these decisions on a day-to-day basis. If the member has a concern about that, he should raise it with Marine Atlantic.

Democratic Reform Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, let us recap the changes to the Elections Act. First of all, it is not an exercise in the independence of the commissioner; the Conservatives are isolating the commissioner. The Conservatives approved over half a million dollars for committee travel, yet they call it a complete “circus” show on every level. Regarding Elections Canada, the Conservatives say they want to reframe what Elections Canada is doing, but in fact, it is doing great work, by international standards, with publications encouraging voting.

Yet they want to cancel that. Instead of trying to improve our elections process, why does the minister insist on attacking Elections Canada just because the Conservatives cannot get what they want? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The fair elections act will keep everyday Canadians in charge of their democracy by putting special interest groups on the sideline and rule-breakers right out of the game altogether.

It will crack down on big money by closing loopholes to illegal donations, like the loans loophole Liberals used to accept roughly half a million dollars in illegal money. It will crack down on illegal robocalls and political impostors with a new robocall registry and tough new penalties for impersonation. It will also make it easier to vote, with an extra voting day for Canadians, and it will improve our democracy for the people who follow the rules.

The Budget Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canada has put tens of millions of dollars over a decade into the world-class James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. There is confusion over where $700,000 a year for bare bones operations will come from so that we do not have to give it up to another country this fall. Given budget 2014's recognition of basic research in the new Canada first research excellence fund, would the minister please instruct either the NRC or the CFI to provide operational funding so that Canadian scientists continue to have access to this world-class research? Hon.

Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this question from the hon. member, because it gives me the opportunity to read a few more quotes from Canadian researchers. The chair of the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, Amit Chakma, said: The U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities...congratulates the Government of Canada on its 2014 budget and the significant investment of $1.5 billion...for the new Canada First Research Excellence Fund.

The president and vice-chancellor of UBC, Stephen Toope, said: I applaud the federal government's decision to spur greater Canadian leadership in global research and innovation....

[ Translation ] Industry Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, 60 workers were dismayed to learn that General Cable, an American company, plans to close its factory in La Malbaie on April 8. This will be the third electrical cable factory in Quebec to close in the past five years even though, with all of the work on the Churchill Falls project, there is no shortage of work. In the budget, the Conservatives announced the creation of an emergency measures budget. That is exactly what La Malbaie needs. What will the government do to help the workers?

(1155) Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this budget is yet more proof that we are focusing on the economy and economic growth. We are keeping tax rates low. That is how we will build wealth. I would remind my colleague that, according to Bloomberg, Canada is now the second-best place in the world to do business. That is how we will attract investment. He can bring up isolated cases, but it is better to look at our overall record. That is how we will create economic growth.

The Environment Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my bill is at a crucial step. We want to force departments to comply with the Sustainable Development Act,

an act that received the unanimous support of the Conservatives but is still not being enforced. I would not have to introduce such a bill if the government abided by its own laws. Can a member of the cabinet tell us whether instructions were given for the vote on my bill? [ English ] Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is taking action to address climate change.

We have introduced new emission regulations for vehicles, and we were the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired plants. Thanks to our action, carbon emissions will go down to close to 130 megatonnes from what they would have been under the Liberals. We are accomplishing this without the Liberal and NDP carbon tax, which would have raised the price of everything.

The Budget Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, many communities in my riding of Perth—Wellington have benefited substantially from our Conservative government's actions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities inform the House of what our government is doing to support communities across the country, especially small communities like many in my own riding? Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Perth—Wellington for his concern for smaller communities and for the spectacular question. With our new building Canada plan, our government will, in fact, provide unprecedented support for infrastructure to communities across this country: stable, predictable funding over the next decade. This will include the gas tax fund, a $22-billion fund, with expanded categories and increased flexibility. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a new $1-billion fund specifically for smaller communities.

We look forward to improving our infrastructure across this country and getting the job done.

Rail Transportation Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Canada's grain transportation system is failing the prairie farmers. We have a crisis in the Prairies, and the Conservative government is standing by doing absolutely nothing. As we have piles of wheat accumulating in our prairies, we have 50-plus empty ships in the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that the Conservative government's failure is costing prairie grain farmers millions of dollars.

I question why the government has failed in terms of addressing this issue in the budget and demonstrating any caring, compassionate attitude to the prairie farmers out west. Why? Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all farmers, happy Valentine's Day. Let me just say that this is a record crop year in Canada. Our farmers seeded over 2 million additional acres and they have produced over 20 million more tonnes of grain than in the past.

The minister has been very proactive on this file, meeting with all stakeholders on multiple occasions in order to find both mid-term and long-term solutions. We are reacting to this problem, and farmers know that we are engaged in their best interests.

[ Translation ] The Budget Mr. François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, people in my region know all too well that highway 185 is deadly. It is one of the deadliest highways in Quebec. Phase three of work, the

section between Saint-Antonin and Saint-Louis-du-Ha!-Ha!, needs to be completed. The solution is to finish the Trans-Canada. Of the $14 billion announced yesterday, $4 billion was for national infrastructure, but this money will be allocated on the basis of merit and not provincial fairness. Can the Minister of Infrastructure tell us whether the completion of the Trans-Canada—to save lives—is a project that will warrant quick access to the money for national infrastructure? (1200) [ English ] Mr. Peter Braid (Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. As I mentioned, the government is very proud of our commitment to improving infrastructure across the country. We have established the longest and the largest infrastructure plan in Canada's history, with stable and predictable funding over the next decade. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced additional details, including guidelines for the specific programs and the application process. We look forward to hearing from municipalities and provinces what their infrastructure priority projects will be, and we will consider them very closely.

Veterans Affairs Mr. Ray Boughen (Palliser, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last year our government committed to Canadian veterans and their families that we would make substantial improvements to the Last Post Fund. We all want to ensure a dignified burial is possible for veterans of modest means or those who have been injured in service to Canada. Would the parliamentary secretary please update the House on how economic action plan 2014 delivers on that commitment? Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the hon. member for Palliser.

He is a hard-working member on behalf of his constituents. Last year, our government doubled the financial payment, now totalling up to almost $10,000, while making the program itself easier to use for veterans' families. This week, economic action plan 2014 added $108 million for the Last Post Fund to ensure that modern-day veterans of modest means can have a dignified burial. Here is what the president of the Last Post Fund said: I am very pleased that the issue of eligibility of modern-day Veterans for the Funeral and Burial Program has been positively dealt with in this budget.

[ Translation ] Democratic Reform Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, the real intent behind the government's election reform has come to light. The accusation made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government that the Chief Electoral Officer is engaged in political activism reminds us that, on April 29, 2008, a few days after Elections Canada searched their party's office, the Conservatives all voted against a Bloc Québécois motion demanding that the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada.

How can the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , who voted against the Bloc Québécois motion, still try to have us believe that his bill is not a vendetta against Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer? Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act will guarantee that all Canadians continue to be in charge of democracy by putting special interests on the sidelines. Those who break our rules will be punished by this legislation.

We are also going to tackle rogue calls, fraudulent voting and the undue influence of money, by eliminating rules that allow this money to enter our system.

International Trade Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of International Development , Quebec cheese makers have to wait for the Canada-Europe free trade agreement to come into effect to find out whether they will be compensated for their loss of revenue.

However, the government did not hesitate to give $280 million to the fishers in Newfoundland also affected by this agreement, or to hand over $500 million to the automotive industry in Ontario to cover the potential consequences of an agreement with South Korea—an agreement that has not yet even been ratified or signed. Why is it that what is good for fishers in Newfoundland and car makers in Ontario is not good for cheese makers in Quebec? I would like to have an answer from someone serious. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government has always defended Canada's supply management system, and with this agreement, we continued doing so. [ English ] I want to highlight for the member that we will monitor any impact of this historic agreement on dairy producers' income, and if production levels are negatively affected, we will assist them financially. This agreement once again confirms that this government will continue to defend and promote Canada's supply management system, both here in Canada and abroad.

Pensions Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, our Canada pension plan is the most secure retirement plan we have. Ninety-three per cent of Canadians depend on the CPP, but living off the current benefits would put retirees into poverty. In December, the Conservatives blocked a national consensus on pension reform, and there is nothing useful in the budget to improve pensions. Will the minister take the advice of pension experts and strengthen our CPP to save our seniors from poverty?

(1205) Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want to pay more payroll tax. We have been across this country in pre-budget consultations. We heard it from manufacturers. We heard it from retailers. We heard it from employees. Nobody in this country wants to pay higher CPP payroll pension tax at this time.

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

Canada Elections Act Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) Bill C-575. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-575,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (residence of electors) . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill. The bill would strike down

section 11(

d) of the Canada Elections Act, which states that Canadian citizens who have lived outside of Canada for more than five years do not qualify as electors in Canada. It is patently undemocratic to restrict people's ability to participate in our democracy because they are engaging in the myriad opportunities that are available globally. Canadians living outside the country still have a vested interest in the decisions of government, taxation, our economy, our justice system, and rights.

While there might have been sound policy reasons to create this restriction in the past, in this day and age of airplanes, Internet, social media, and instantaneous information transmission, those reasons are long outdated. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens who are 18 years and older have the right to vote as well as the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. Canadians living abroad are a significant asset to Canada domestically and internationally. These Canadians may not hold citizenship somewhere else, yet they are being totally and unreasonably disenfranchised.

I hope the House looks favourably on the bill. I look forward to its passage. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions DNA Databases Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off our presentation of petitions this day. I have one that I would like to read, and it will be the last time the House hears this. It is a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling for the creation of a national DNA databank in the name of Lindsey's Law, named after Lindsey Nicholls who went missing August 2, 1993.

Her mother, Judy Peterson, a resident of my constituency, and petitions from all across the country finally achieved the result, and the budget did in fact create the DNA databank. I present this petition as a tribute to Judy Peterson and the persistence of one mother who was heartbroken but yet has improved criminal justice and the ability to solve crimes for all Canadians.

(1210) Animal Welfare Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present a petition from thousands of Canadians. These names were collected by Yvonne Russell, the head of a group called Paw Tipsters. It is a group committed to ending cruelty against animals. These thousands of petitioners have called for the government to create a national registry of those people who abuse animals.

[ Translation ] Public Transit Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that was signed by thousands of Torontonians and residents of the GTA. One part of this petition represents people who are calling for improved public transit services. Public transit is essential to improving all of Canada's regional economies, and unfortunately, Canada does not have a national strategy. The petitioners are calling for a national strategy.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I present all petitions from my constituents and I have three of them today. The first one asks the government to sign and implement agreements to keep global warming to under 2° Celsius and to help the poorest nations of the world adapt to climate change.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition from my constituents calls for a moratorium on genetically modified alfalfa, to allow for a review of its impact on farmers.

Government Advertising Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the government to refrain from tax-supported advertising that goes beyond factual information for compliance or access to government programs and asks the government to redirect those funds to provide front-line service for Canadians.

Mining Industry Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. The first is from 126 constituents in Edmonton—St. Albert, calling on the government to establish an extractive sector ombudsman to investigate complaints against mining companies operating internationally, and to ensure compliance with labour, environmental, and human rights standards.

Impaired Driving Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, Ind.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 28 individuals from northern Alberta and British Columbia, calling on tougher and stronger impaired driving laws, including the establishment of a specific offence for vehicular homicide in the unfortunate circumstance when an impaired driver causes the death of an individual.

[ Translation ] Gatineau Park Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am once again pleased to present petitions signed by many constituents in the national capital region who are calling for federal legislation to fully protect Gatineau Park.

Public Transit Mr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by more than 100 people from the Toronto area who are calling on the government to come up with a national public transit strategy. As we have said a number of times, Canada is the only G8 country not to have a national public transit strategy. Having such a strategy would go a long way to helping my constituents cross the bridge more quickly during morning rush hour. The bridge is gridlocked. Improving public transit would be the best way to deal with the traffic jams.

[ English ] Animal Welfare Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to acknowledge Yvonne Russell, the president of Paw Tipsters, and the fine work that she has done. I present a petition today with thousands of signatures from across Canada, asking that Canada have an animal abuse registry in place whereby people who are charged or convicted under the Criminal Code or provincial animal care acts for acts of animal cruelty would have their names placed on the registry. The registry would aid adoption agencies in screening out individuals with past histories of animal abuse, to assist in preventing animal abuse and neglect.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the community of London. As members may know, there was a recent tragedy in London involving a family of three. The petitioners who have contacted me are still in mourning over this terrible loss. The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada looks at improving staffing levels in government ministries like Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to make sure that applications can be processed in a timely manner.

They also ask that immigration officials consider all factors regarding individual applications for status, including humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Ultimately, this is a Canada with humanitarian and compassionate beliefs. This is an important petition.

(1215) Lyme Disease Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians all the way from Galiano Island to Thunder Bay, encouraging the House to pass the bill from hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , Bill C-442 , having to do with Lyme disease. The petitioners feel that we need this bill because the science and medicine are running behind climate change. Lyme disease is an emerging problem, and we need to get on it.

Rouge National Park Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding for the creation of Rouge national park. The current Rouge Park is home to the endangered Carolinian forest, mixed woodland, and plain life zones of Canada. It is also home to the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations, and their sacred burial and village sites. This is the last chance that we have to create a large national park in southern Ontario, an area with 34% of Canada's population.

Roughly 77% of its land and agriculture and human settlement uses only 1/400 of its land protected in national parks. The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada protects the irreplaceable 100 square kilometres of public land assembly within a healthy and sustainable Rouge national park.

They are calling on the government to protect and restore the 600 metre-wide wooded main ecological corridor linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine in Rouge national park, and to conduct a rational, scientific, and transparent public planning process to create Rouge national park's boundaries, which would include consultations with first nations communities,